bondholders usually get paid first. same thing here. unquote. that simple statement tells us what we need to know. i refuse to put china's interests before the interests of the american people, and i refuse to sit silently as the majority moves us one step closer to default. i urge my colleagues to please vote no on today's rule and the underlying legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves her time. the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. mr. sessions: thank you very much. one of the members of congress that i spoke about that not only brought pieces of this legislation to the ways and means committee, but really as part of a debate for our conference and to the american people is our next speaker. i'd like to yield if i could at this time five minutes to the gentleman from elk grove, california, congressman mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this rule to bring the full faith and credit act to the house floor. i had hoped that amid all the controversies gripping this congress, certainly we should be able to agree that the full faith and credit of the united states government should not hang in the balance every time there is a fiscal debate in washington. unfortunately, even so common sense a proposition as this cannot produce a consensus in today's congress. this bill simply guarantees the debt of the united states. no matter what political storms are raging in washington. the public credit must be maintained. yet this president and his followers, who have taken our nation on the biggest borrowing binge in its history, who have run up more debt than almost all of his predecessors put together, oppose this attempt to assure

credit markets that whatever else happens in washington their loans to this government are absolutely safe. most states have had similar provisions in their laws or constitutions guaranteeing their debt for generations. last year in testimony to the senate, fed chairman ben bernanke praised these provisions for maintaining confidence in state and municipal markets, and he told our own house budget committee that a similar measure at the federal level would help protect our nation against the threat of default. the president and his followers argue that this is somehow an excuse for not paying our other obligation. what absolute nonsense. i challenge him to name one member of congress who has ever suggested that this measure is an acceptable alternative to not paying our other bills. their reliance on this falsehood is a measure of the bankruptcy of their argument. do they actually suggest that all of these other states that have guaranteed their sovereign debts for many generations have ever used these guarantees as an

excuse not to pay their other bills? on the contrary, by providing clear and unambiguous mandates to protect their credit first, they actually support and maintain their ability to pay for all of their other obligations. the gentlelady from new york puts forth the argument that this measure will put foreign creditors ahead of programs serving americans. i would remind her that public credit is what makes possible all of the other programs of this government from paying our troops to seniors' health care. without it we cannot pay our other bills. i would also remind her that most of the public debt is held by americans. much of it to american pension funds. china holds less than 10%. so the overwhelming effect of this measure is to protect the investments that americans have made in their own government while protecting the credit that supports every other expenditure of this government, including our troops.

in its original form, this measure restated the already existing authority of the treasury department to prioritize the other obligations in order to assure prompt and full payment of the debt and added a mandate requiring it to do so. the committee's much simpler approach directs the treasury secretary to pay the debt even if it means temporarily borrowing outside the debt limit in order to do so. i want to thank for this improvement which i gratefully acknowledge and wholeheartedly endorse. let me say this again, no one advocates that this government delay paying any of its bills and this legislation does no such thing. indeed, this measure protects our ability to pay all of our other bills because paying those bills depends on maintaining the nation's credit. given the precarious nature of our nation's finances, principaled disputes over how the debt limit is addressed are going to happen from time to

time. i remember a few years ago when then senator barack obama vigorously opposed increasing the debt limit sought by the bush administration. i never equated mr. obama's opposition to the debt limit increase as anything other than a principleled and well placed concern over the proper management of our finances. it's sad he cannot grant the mow tiffs of his opposition the same curtcy. when these controversies erupt, as they will do in a free society, it is imperative that credit markets are supremely confident that their loans are secure. so i say this a third time, an impasse on the debt limit is something much to be avoided because it can do enormous damage to our nation's prestige and prosperity. but there is one thing that could do even more damage than delaying payments on our other bills. and that is the threat of a default on our sovereign debt. this measure takes that threat off the table. it assures credit markets that their investments in the united

states are as certain as anything that can be had in this life. mr. speaker, let us pass this rule and proceed with consideration of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, the ranking member on ways and means, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: you know, when you boil this all down essentially what this bill says is pay some ills first and not others. i came here because if the rule passes we'll have a full discussion tomorrow, but i wanted to share with everybody the story that i saw this morning. it's accurate. the headline is, john boehner on

debt ceiling, let's pay china irst then u.s. troops. that headline in the huffington post is based on an interview with the speaker with bloomberg tv, peter cook. and i quote, mr. cook, doesn't it mean as democrats have suggested that you basically -- you're basically choosing to pay china before you pay u.s. troops? the speaker, in quotes, listen, those who have loaned us money like in any other proceeding, if you will, court proceeding, the bondholders usually get paid first. same thing here. same thing here. end quote. and then the speaker says, to conclude his comments, as to the

administration, if it comes to the point where they don't have enough money to pay the bills, here is some order that we thinkle is sound. end of quotes. it's not sound. it's not as it is said workable. it endangers our economy. i quote former bush administration economist. it would be the first step, i quote, to becoming a banana republic, end of quote. in quotes, a bloody mess, end of quotes. as mentioned earlier by our distinguished ranking member on the rules, another bush administration official said, i quote, prioritization is impossible. is the government really going to be in the position of

withholding benefits, salaries, rent, contract payments in order to pay off treasury bondholders? almost half by the way are held by foreigners. so it isn't sound also to choose some over others. so i just want to go through the list, if i might, so everybody understands. essentially what this is saying. china and other bondholders first, not american troops in harm's way. china first, not retired and disabled veterans. i ask for additional time if i might. ms. slaughter: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for a minute. mr. levin: china first, not doctors and hospitals treating medicare patients. china first, not american small businesses who provide goods and services. china and others first, not

school lunch programs. china and others first, not universities doing medical research. china and other bondholders first, not college students who are in pell grants. or taxpayers due refunds. or other federal trust funds holding treasury bonds. for example, medicare trust funds, deposit insurance, highway and airport trust funds, and the federal housing authority. in a word, this is irresponsible . default is default is default. the republicans are playing with fire. i think to gain political leverage. instead they should think of the national interest. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you very much. we have had an opportunity once again today as we did yesterday

to hear from the ranking member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from michigan. and he brought his ideas, the best ideas he had up to the rules committee yesterday on this same issue. but the issues that the gentleman speaks about are attacking our answers. their answer that they propose is, tax increases and spending increases. and that way we'll simply have more money into the system, because as we have already heard, today, just a few minutes ago, the more money we give an unemployment compensation, the more vitality is in our cities, more spending takes place, more unemployment compensation, more vitality, more spending in our cities. mr. speaker, that's the wrong way to go. the republican party does not believe we should create a permanent underclass of people who receive unemployment compensation or who are afraid

of facing the truth about where this country's headed. the facts of the case are other countries are ahead of us on this curve. most of them are in europe. and they ignore the signs that republicans are here talking about today. the signs of spending too much, relying on its people to raise taxes for them to bring money in and a big government continuing to put rules and regulations and impediments in front of people. the facts of the case are simple. we are here today because it is president obama and the democrats who spent too much money, who are destroying jobs, and who even today are holding back the keystone pipeline what could be thousands of jobs for people in this country, lessening our reliance on other parts of the world for our

energy, and bring back american made jobs. this is exactly why we are having problems. so it's the republican party that is trying to offer a public discussion, a public debate including our great speaker, john boehner, who says, we need to make sure that part of the debate comes down to, , when if we get to that point, that we pay back the people who loaned us money in the first place. because they need to have confidence that they can continue loaning us money because we are still having to borrow a lot of money. i can think of few things that would be worse than to publicly announce we are going to pay somebody else before we pay back our creditors. that is how creditors no longer borrow any money to you.

so what republicans are doing is having a public debate. we are bringing this to the floor. and i do recognize our friends on the other side, our democrat friends, that they want to spend more and tax more. and they have never seen enough spending in this place. they want more and more. hey have an insishable -- in insatiable appetite to spend people's money and like anybody who started the fires, an arsonist, showed up as the firefighter, the hero, to say i want to save our country. they created the economic malaise that we have. it is overspending. it's holding back job creation, and republicans are going to have n the floor and to this debate with the media and american people and the administration to say let's know what we are going to do when we get there months ahead of time

so we don't falter like we did some time ago and take on the president's idea again of sequestration. only to have him argue against his own idea later. then try to mislead the american public what this whole issue's about. it's about economic demise of the united states of america. and how we are having to work here to make sure that we publicly discuss this before it becomes too late. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to mr. huffman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. huffman: i request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. huffman: i rise to oppose

this bill. a bill that would make a mockery of our country's full faith and credit. it preserves our country for default by prioritizing payments to wall street and foreign governments over nearly every other national obligation. now, we've seen the disastrous effects on our credit rating, our stock market, our economic recovery when congress plays political games with the debt ceiling. but here we go again. why would my colleagues across the aisle prioritize paying the chinese government over paying our troops in afghanistan? what about air traffic controllers, f.b.i. investigators, small businesses who contract with the government, doctors who treat medicare parets? this bill says it's ok to -- medicare patients? this bill says it's ok as long as chinese bondholders are paid in full. mr. speaker, it's time to pay forward with house senate negotiations on a final budget resolution that strengthens the economy and avoids default. that's what we've been asking speaker boehner to do, but

instead of taking that responsible step, we're here today considering a bill that would take us closer to the brink of economic chaos. for the sake of american workers and businesses, i urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield thee minutes to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. mccolin ton, is recognized for three -- mr. mcclintock:, is foked for three minutes. mr. mcclintock: this pays china first, that's the constant refrain we're hearing. let me remind them, china holds about 10% of our debt. americans hold more than half of it. and all of our spending from this government depends on maintaining our credit. that means whoever is loaning us money, whether china or tim

buck tuesday, whether it's -- tim buck too, whether it's the teamsters, or the child's bond they've goten for their birthday, we're borrowing over a quarter what we spend. if we cannot borrow, if the credit markets is ever compromised, this whole house of cards collapses around us, a house of cards constructed by this administration's profligate spending. we have a strain that has never been borne before. this bill says we should at least reinforce that credit with exactly the same guarantees that most of our states have successfully employed for generations and that i would remind my friend from california, california has had in its constitution for over 100 years. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm

pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cooper. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. slaughter: excuse me. let me make that two minutes. mr. cooper: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. cooper: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm opposed to the rule and i'm opposed to the pay china first bill, but it's my understanding that they've added something. i think it's called the camp amendment that would make sure that members of congress are not paid if the nation in fact defaults. this borrows an idea that i introduced back in the summer of 2011, h.r. 2653. we had a number of bipartisan co-sponsors. i'm worried, though, that despite imitation been the sincerest form of flattery, they've diluted this concept to make it unconstitutional. due to the 27th amendment, it is unconstitutional to adjust member pay during a session. we drafted it so members would be paid last which would make

sure we would not be paid. perhaps they redid this. they took our no budget, no pay idea from the no labels group and it's now become law, but they took out the heart of it. right now we should be having a house-senate conference since both houses have finally passed legislation. the senate being the latter. now after four years they've passed a budget. now we're refusing to conference the budget. i believe in pay for performance. the american taxpayers is not getting their money's worth from today's congress. they should be getting their money's worth. i think penalizing congress is a powerful concept. but they should be getting full strength, not diluted or unconstitutional treatment and the quickie amendment such as being offered here. the core of pay for performance, they should look at it because we've done many

things right and we should be praised for it and we have done many things wrong. special interests are paying us by performance all the time, whether in p.a.c. contributions or in postretirement job opportunities. that's one reason in congress is not performing to full capability. it's one reason we are not living up to our potential. so as we look at this concept, this camp amendment, please, let's do it right. please, let's make sure that congress is not paid for failure. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i want to acknowledge in fact what mr. cooper's presence here today, his idea was valid and in fact was utilized in what we have done. the difference, slight difference of how i'd like to describe this to the gentleman is we did not say that members

cannot be paid. what we said is that no new debt can be used to pay members. so we would have to be paid out of if we're spending 40% too much money today and 60% was coming in, we could be paid out of that amount. but we could not be paid out of the debt side amount which is what this legislation is germane and what this legislation is about. so i do thank the gentleman. thankate for his ideas -- i thank the gentleman for his ideas, that members of congress should equally suffer or equally gain as the american people have. in this circumstance, it's the loss for all of us, and that is why chairman camp included this as an amendment to make sure that we clarify, members of congress could not be paid with new debt that was being brought

to the united states as part of this bill. i hope that clarifies, not only the success that we believe mr. cooper brought with his ideas but also the intent of what this legislation actually does, what we spoke about in the rules committee and the fine line between paying a member and whether it comes from new debt or whether it comes from operating within the 60% that would not be the new debt. so i hope this clarifies not om what we're trying to do -- not only what we're trying to do but we speak forth rightly to members of what this legislation actually is. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. perlmutter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. article 1, section 8, 8.1,

congress shall have power to y and collect taxes, duties, exises to pay for the debt and pay for the common defense and general welfare of the united states. says, section 14 4, the validity of the public debt of the united states, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services, shall not be questioned. but that's precisely what the republican party, the republican majority is doing today, and i have many friends on the republican side of the aisle who i respect but i've never been as disappointed in hem as i am today. equal. the united states of america for 235 years has treated all

its creditors equally. if you're the landlord, if you get a salary, if you mow the lawn on the national maul, you get -- national mall, you get paid at the same time as those who loans money to the united states gets paid. everybody gets paid. that's how we treat it. we don't treat it that china or wall street or saudi arabia, because they've london us money, gets paid before the nurse working in one of our v.a. hospitals. that's not america. that is wrong. that is not how we run our country. it is unconstitutional, and i'd say to my friends, this short little bill of yours to prioritize our debts is exactly the wrong thing to do. if i were a credit rating agency, i'd say if you're prioritizing your debts you're getting ready to not pay somebody. and everybody's treated

equally. so i would say if i were that credit rating agency, i'd downgrade us today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd say to my friends on the republican side of the aisle, to the majority party, don't do this. this is wrong. this is not our nation. we have built this nation on equality, and that includes the equality of payment, whether you're a landlord or you work for the country, you're a veteran, whatever it may be, you get paid. that's how we operate it. and we in this congress have the ability, not only to raise the revenue that's needed to do that, but manage our expenses, but we don't stiff anybody. and so i'd say to my friends, withdraw this bill now. it is bad legislation. it is wrong for this nation. get rid of it. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is

recognized. mr. sessions: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the chairman of the financial services committee, the member from the fifth district of texas, the gentleman from dallas, texas, mr. hensarling. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the distinguished chairman of the rules committee for yielding, mr. speaker. i also want to thank the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, who has been perhaps the most cogent defender of the constitution on the floor of the united states house of representatives and has provided his leadership today to ensure that we do not have default on sovereign debt but we put this nation on a path to fiscal sanity. and i thank him for his leadership. mr. speaker, the folks in the fifth congressional district of texas that i'm proud to represent have a lot of

insecurity about their personal economy and i have great fear that their children will not enjoy a brighter future. now, i heard my friend, the gentleman from colorado, say that everyone gets paid. well, mr. speaker, maybe that's part of the problem. maybe that is one of the reasons why under president obama's leadership there has been more debt created in the last four years than in our nation's first 200. we are awash in debt. and mr. speaker, we know that we have a debt, not because we have insufficient taxes, but because we spend too much. math is a pesky thing. in the last 10 years, the department of ag, up 114%, h.u.d. up 61%, h.h.s. 79%. our total government spending has increased 70%, and the

family budget, measured by family median income, down 6%. now, some say revenues are a problem. revenues are up 52%, but you can't raise taxes enough to chase the spending that the democrats and the president ant to foist upon the american people. they have put us on a path to national bankruptcy. at some point we've got to quit spending money we don't have. again, we are on the press -- precipice of a debt crisis and it's because we are spending too much. now some on the other side of the aisle, their answer to the debt ceiling is to get rid of it. some have introduced legislation just to get rid of the debt ceiling. you know, that's kind of like, mr. speaker, a fire breaks out in your home and your response is to unplug the smoke detector because of that nuisance noise

n the background that may be -- that maybe your house is on fire. i remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, greece didn't have a debt ceiling vote, and we have democrats who say, no, let's just get rid of it. but for those who believe that we're not going to get rid of it, we have other friends from across the aisle who essentially want to use it as a hostage, a hostage for something that is not a debt. a debt is when you go out and you borrow money and you must pay it back. every family understands this. it's one thing for an american pay y to borrow money to their mortgage versus borrowing las so they can pay for a vegas vacation that they would like to take. they are not equivalent. .

mr. speaker, paying sovereign debt is not the same thing as borrowing money so that this institution and this town can continue to spend money for pottery classes in morocco, to pay for the travel expenses of the alabama watermelon queen, to pay for robotic squirrels and all the rest of the lunacy that this federal government spends nd takes away, takes bread off the table of hardworking american families. mr. speaker, we believe, we believe that the president has this power. he says, oh, no. i don't have this power. i find it ironic that we are willing to codify what we already believe to be the law of the land and the president says, no, i want to veto that. again, he wants to use this as a hostage. this is a very simple bill. introduced by the gentleman from california, to require our treasury to make good on all of

our debt payments. that's it. we must stop borrowing money to quander our children's future. this bill will help us do this. but the democrats, they don't want to take this specter of default off the table. it's the only way, the only way they can continue spending. now, they say they are doing it, they do, mr. speaker, i look forward to seeing their name on the big board, soon. this is the right thing and the smart thing to do. i urge the house adopt this rule and the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds just to talk about what it is we are trying to pay for on our side. 1.4 million active duty troops, 780,000 troops and reserves who will not be paid while china is. benefits for 3.4 million disabled veterans. 1.3 million veterans receiving education or home purchasing

assistance. earned payments to the american small business. payments to 1.1 million doctors and health care practitioners who provide care to seniors with medicare. payments to schools and nutritious lunches served to 32 million children. payments to 44,000 national institutes of health guarantees. and i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, is recognized for three minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, this bill would raise the debt ceiling, but only insofar as necessary and only for the purpose of paying our debts to china and to social security. not raising the debt ceiling beyond what is -- what this bill does would mandate not paying veterans care beneficiaries or our troops overseas or our veterans here at home or anyone owed money working for the federal government, and would generally squash the economy by forcing default on most of our debt. raising the debt ceiling merely

allows us to pay debts we have previously incurred. all debts previously incurred. we should recognize this simple reality by eliminating the debt ceiling and passing responsible budgets. but republicans now use the debt ceiling to hold the entire country hostage unless their demands, which they haven't figured out, unless their demands are met. this reminds me of the 1930's beganster film. it's a nice restaurant you got over there. nice economy you got over there. this republican tactic has already brought about the first downgrade in the u.s. credit rating in history, and it's brought about brutal spending cuts that have punished the middle class, failed to help the millions of americans looking for work, and weaken the safety net of working families and seniors. mr. speaker, two wars and two bush tax cuts and eight years of irresponsibility that brought us the deficit in the last budget adopted under george w. bush of 10.1%. we have -- of g.d.p.

we have reduced that budget deficit in three years from 10.1% of g.d.p. to 4.8% today. this is the fastest deficit reduction since the demobilization after world war ii. economists agree that the draconian austerity decreed by the sequester has slowed our economic growth, eliminating millions of jobs and could create a double dip recession. we have seen this in europe. where starting 2 1/2 years ago they adopted the policies the republicans want. they adopted severe austerity. they cut budgets. too much. and the result is, a double dip depression with negative economic growth. we are still at positive economic growth. we are hearing from our republican friends today about how in danger our credit rating s it is so endangered despite their flaming rhetoric that we are paying the lowest interest rates on our bonds ever and our bonds are selling higher. people are getting in line to buy our bonds because our credit rating is in fact quite good.

in spite of presenting the american people with a plan to invest in our economy and create jobs for the 12 million americans looking for work, republicans are once again intent on manufacturing a crisis that will only increase unemployment. we should not develop a plan that generate and then manage a devastating default that will put our economy into chaos. we should repeal the sequester, slow down our deficit reduction, spend the money on highways and bridges and infrastructure investing, and putting our people back to work so that more people work, unemployment goes down, government spending and unemployment insurance and food stamps goes down. and the economy improves and our unemployment also goes down. that's the proper path which what the republicans are trying to do is say don't do that, follow the path of europe, get 12% or 15% unemployment. that's what this bill would have us in the direction of doing. that's not the direction we ought to be going in. we ought to safeguard our credit and not even contemplate the possibility of default.

i thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, has four minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. sessions: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to e gentleman from california, mr. cardenas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. cardenas: thank you very much. thank you, madam. today i rise in opposition to house resolution 202 and house resolution 807. because the last time congress did something this dumb it cost the american public $19 billion over the next 10 years. why? because our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in the history of the united states. let's not do something like that again. that does not help the economy.

it doesn't put anyone toe work. all -- to work. all it does is make sure everybody around the world who loves to buy american-backed paper just gets more money for it. which means more money out of the pockets of americans for one reason and one reason only. to have the optics of politics of a bill like this that actually basically states, we are not going to back the paper that people buy. that is something that is not within our american values. that's something that doesn't even need to see the light of day. would play that we politics with the american dollar. we would play politics with the reputation of this great country by having these two bills before us. thank you. i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: may i inquire if my colleague has any more requests for time? mr. session: except for my final

close, do i not. i thank the gentlewoman. ms. slaughter: thank you. let me introduce the previous question. mr. speaker, if we can defeat the previous question, will i offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the house to hold a vote on the student loan relief act. if congress doesn't act next month undergraduates students across the country will see a hike in their student loan interest rate. if my republican colleagues want to talk about debt priorities, this should be a dialogue to discuss the proposal i yield four minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for four minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the previous question. as the gentlelady said, defeat of the previous question will allow her to propose instead an mendment to the rule to a bill that intentionally degrades the full faith and credit of our country, sets that aside, instead allows for consideration of the student loan relief act, a measure which will prevent the

subsidized stafford student loan program from doubling in 53 days. let me again reiterate that point. on july 1 if congress does not act the subsidized stafford student loan program, which provides student loan assistance for over seven million young americans, will double from 3.4% to 6.8%. we have heard a lot of talk on the floor here today about debt and trying to protect the young people of this contry. the federal reserve bank of new york recently issued its latest update regarding student loan debt in this country, which is now $1.1 trillion. it's higher than credit card debt. it is higher than car loan debt. when we talk about the challenges facing, particularly young people in this country, or trying to get the opportunity to upgrade their skills, something which this recession has taught us painfully is necessary because the unemployment rate of people with high school degrees or less is three times as high as people with four-year

degrees. the fact of the matter is, the subsidized stafford student loan program is a life line in terms of young people being able to pay the rising cost of tuition. despite the fact that we have a ticking clock of 53 days and only 24 session days scheduled between now and july 1, the majority has not brought a single proposal forward to avoid this catastrophe from happening to young people or across the country. the state of the union loan relief act, which i am the lead co-sponsor of, as over 125 co-sponsors here in the house. will extend the lower rate for two years and allow this chamber to once and for all get its arms around this serious critical problem for the future of this country. the fact of the matter is the student loan debt issued requires a comprehensive rewrite of the higher education authorization act which will give tools to young people starting in high school to make better choices about where they go to school, how they are going to pay for it, with better

awareness and information. and would also allow young people who have graduated to be able to refinance their debt so they can lower those monthly payments. again, you talk to the realtors in this country about what's holding back the housing market, young people in their 20's and 30's who are carrying student loan debt of $60,000, $70,000, $80,000 are not in a position to buy a house because he they can't qualify for a mortgage because of these high payments. it is time for congress to focus on what people are really waking up in the morning thinking about and worrying about which is how to pay for college. mr. speaker, on may 1 we just celebrated decision day, the day when young people make the choice about where they are going to college. unfortunately, they have no clue about whether or not their subs diced stafford loan rate, which has been in place for the last six years, will continue beyond july 1. it is time for this chamber to focus on what's important to american families. let's take up the student loan relief act. let's pass a higher education

authorization bill which deals with this issue from soup to nuts, and let's setaside this crazy bill which intentionally degrades the full faith and credit of our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut yields back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. ms. slaughter: i'll continue with my closing if i may. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you very much. the fact that this chamber has dedicated valuable time and resources in consideration of an unconstitutional bill that will put our nation on the road to default is regretful. the fact the legislation puts the economic interest of china before paying our soldiers' salaries, and providing benefits to our veterans is a disgrace. the plan presented by the majority fails to raise the debt ceiling, which is the only way that we can prevent economic default. instead, it simply wastes another week of valuable time and $24 million to run this house and congress for a week,

and moves us that much closer to yet another downgrade in our nation's credit rating. something that had never happened until the majority controlled the house. and now it is absolutely possible the majority would lead us with a second downgrade of the nation's credit over the course of two short years. on may 19, our nation will reach its debt ceiling, and emergency measures will be put into place to delay default. we have seen this film before and we now how the movie ends. a twist the plot with terrible consequences that come by refusing to pay our bills. i urge my colleagues not to walk down that road again. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues most enthusiastically to vote no to defeat the previous question, i

urge a no vote on the rule. i would like to see this bill withdrawn. i yield back the balance of my time. many the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york yields back her time. the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you. i have been around this place a long time and i have heard of people who did not read bills. i heard of people who did not understand bills. but i have never seen the circumstances today where the truth was being held hostage. the republicans today are offering a mechanism to the president of the united states and the american people that says, if we do get in a circumstance where we do not extend our debt to further allow the federal government to buy more debt to pay its obligations, then we offer this opportunity. and that is that the government can, even when we're in a circumstance that we cannot borrow more money, and let's

say we spend 60% that we get money in but 40% is the debt that we can no longer have available to pay our obligations, about a 60/40 split, then we're allowing the federal government to go borrow more debt to pay its obligations. so that it doesn't compete against the money that does come in to pay the bills of the united states as the president of the united states would choose. i've never heard of a more reasonable option. we're not telling the president how to spend the money. 're giving authorization for new debt to pay our debt obligations. that's not cutting people off. it's not truthful to say we're going to do that. anybody that tells you that

didn't read the bill. what this is about is to say, if we go into a debt circumstance where we cannot come to an agreement, then we are authorizing the federal government, the treasury, to go get more debt only enough to pay debt obligations to where we do not default. and then we work on the circumstances of how much money comes in. this has been miscast. the truth has been held hostage. and i am disappointed in members of congress who came down here and misled the american people about what this bill is. it is nothing more than allowing the treasury to go borrow money to pay its already obligations to people who've london us money.

who've loaned us money. to come to the floor to suggest this is simply a disservice to the operations i think we have to be open and honest about what our job is. i urge my colleagues to understand the simplification of what this bill's about, to not try and twist it, to have it become something it is not. i hope my colleagues will vote yes on the bill, yes on the underlying legislation and i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays

will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1406. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. kline: mr. chairman, we're bringing up h.r. 1406, the working families flexibility act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 30, h.r. 1406, a bill to amend the fair labor standards

act of 1938 to provide compensatory time for employees in the private sector. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 198, the amendment recommended by the committee on education and the work force printed in the bill is adopted. the bill, as amended, is considered as read. after one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be ordered to consider the further amendment printed in house report 113-51, if offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson, or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kleine, and the gentleman from connecticut, -- the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline, and the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1406, the working families

flexibility act of 2013, and yield myself such time as i may consume. today we have an opportunity to make life a little easier for working families across the country. this legislation doesn't create a new government program or bureaucracy. it doesn't spend taxpayer dollars or add to the national debt. the working families flexibilityability simply removes an outdated -- flexibility act simply removes an outdated policy that allows the private sector the ability to balance family and work. the fair labor act has had basic wage and hour protection. those covered by the law received time and a half in compensation for each overtime worked. the law plays a significant role in millions of workplaces, yet, it does not reflect the realities of the modern work force. for example, in 2011, 59% of

families with children had two orking parents compared to 37% 40 years ago. meanwhile, 8 1/2 million workers today are single parents, and one in three undergraduate students also works full time. each statistic are men and women trying to juggle family and work. a single working mom that needs extra time to attend a parent-teacher conference, a dad trying to watch a little league game, two people working for a family and caring for an elderly relative. supporting a family is more about providing an income. it's about being there for one another. we know there are a lot of workers who would seize the opportunity to earn a few extra dollars but others may welcome additional paid time off to spend with loved ones. shouldn't workers choose what's best for their families?

shouldn't workers choose? unfortunately, federal law denies many private sector workers this fundamental choice. the law assumes everyone would choose more money in the bank over more time with family. to add insult to injury, public sector employees have enjoyed this benefit for decades, yet, we continue to treat those in the private sector differently. that's not fair, mr. speaker. it's not fair to millions of hardworking americans. the working families flexibility act would remove this unnecessary barrier and allow private sector employees to offer -- employers to offer employees to have accrued time off or comp time for working overtime. this does not change the 40-hour workweek and the comp time would be at the same cash wages. there would be protections to make sure that comp time is strictly, strictly, mr. speaker, is voluntary.

such as requiring a written agreement between the employer and employee. allowing them to cash out accrued comp time whenever they choosed, retaining all enforcement remedies under current law and adding new protections to prevent coercion and intimidation. at the heart of the legislation is worker choice. workers choose whether to accept comp time. workers choose when to cash out comp time and they choose when to use their paid time off so long as they use the same standard public sector employees do. same standard, mr. speaker. americans sacrifice a lot to provide for their families. let's get the federal government out of the way and give workers the flexibility they need to thrive at home and at work. i urge my colleagues to support the working families flexibility act of 2013, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves his time. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker.

i rise in opposition to this legislation, which, again, is no stranger, sadly, to this congress. this is the fifth time that the majority party has introduced it going back to 1997, and each time the huge flaws in this legislation has resulted in its complete collapse in terms of getting anything close to real support through both chambers and through the executive brarching. and once again it doesn't -- executive branch. and once against it doesn't deserve a chance in this case. it gives workers choice, the fact of the matter is, a closer examination of the bill shows the opposite is true. the better way to describe this bill is more work pay less bill. it takes the 1938 fair labor standards act, which created a bright line to protect people's right to a 40-hour workweek and make sure that that next hour after 40 hours is paid for with

a time and a half of wages. again, that created the weekend in america. that created the time off that families have taken for granted as middle-class americans for decades. what this bill does, it blurs that line. it creates total chaos in terms of trying to come up with a system to set up ground rules with a case-by-case, contract, written contract that's mandated by the language of the bill and then leaves it to the enforcement of state labor departments, wage and hours divisions, which are totally incapable of going in in the tens of thousands of workplaces all across america in trying to figure out whether or not in fact the rules have been followed. a closer examination of the bill shows on page 8 of the bill in lines 7 through 10 that in fact all these representations that the worker gets to choose are in fact not correct. at the end of the day, the employer has the right to veto any comp time that this bill

has allowed to crew over any period of time, so the notion that somehow a person has that choice to accumulate comp time and then be able to use it as a family vacation or family emergency in fact does not meet the actual plain language of the bill that was -- that is before us today. and that is why organizations which represent working families, organizations which represent women, organizations which have been part of employment law for years and years and years in this country have resoundingly come out in opposition to this legislation, over 160 various organizations of every stripe, representing religious groups, women groups, labor groups, groups that again deal with employment law have basically looked at this legislation for the fifth time and gave it -- given it thumbs down. the fact is we should do that. there is no question, however, that workers do in fact need more help in terms of making sure that the wages that have

stagnated over the last three decades get more support, that families who again are strained by the fact that those stagnating wages have required second jobs and multiple spouses in the work force, but the fact is there's much better solutions than this legislation, the more work pay less act. in fact what we should do is set up a standard for paid sick leave in this country so a single parent waking up with a child whose temperature is over 100 degrees doesn't feel they have no choice in terms of how to deal with that situation, that they have some guaranteed opportunity without losing the pay that they need to put food on the table or put gas in the tank, that they in fact have that choice which so many of us here as members of congress and our staff certainly take for granted. we should apply the same standards in it terms of sick pay that we enjoy to the working people of this country. this bill doesn't do it. this bill does not meet that test. again, it sets up a system that is completely unworkable and

unenforceable. it butchers the fair labor standard act bright line that's protected the american weekend for decades and decades in this country, and in the name of workplace flexibility, in fact, tips the scale once again against the worker -- against the employee who basically for far too long has suffered in this economy. we need better solutions. this is not the bill. i would, again, reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm very pleased right now to yield to the author of this terrific piece of legislation, the member of the committee, the gentlelady from alabama, mrs. roby, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for three minutes. mrs. roby: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the working family flexibility act of 2013. i thank the gentleman from minnesota, my chairman, for all

of the hard work on this bill and the committee as well. mr. speaker, i am proud to sponsor this bill and i can tell you as a working mom, my husband and i, we certainly relate to and understand the families juggling so much between their workplace and their home life. if you talk to any working mom or dad, you'll hear them say things like, wouldn't it be nice to have flexibility to attend my son's soccer game, coach a tee ball team, take care of my aging parents, be there to support my children at a time when one one of the spouses is being deployed by our military. these are -- all things that working moms and dads want to be a part of that those that have elderly parents want to be there for their parents in their time of need. we can't legislate another hour in the workday, but we can give moms and dads a little bit of relief when it comes to

flexibility in their workplace. under this bill, no worker could ever be forced, despite the claims of my colleagues on the other side, no worker could ever be forced to take time off, take time off. just like no business would ever be forced to offer it. for some people having paid time off is far more valuable than money. the problem is, mr. speaker, that under the current law the private sector doesn't enjoy the same privilege to offer this been fit to their workers as the -- benefit to their workers as the public sector does. as my colleague was talking about sick time, sick leave, and the benefits that we may enjoy in the federal government, i think that the private sector should enjoy the been fit that federal employees have -- benefit that federal employees have now and that's compensatory time and the right to choose what to do with their time. our message to americans, mr. speaker, is very clear. we must get washington out of the way of how they use their

time. it is your time to choose. all existing enforcement remedies under the current law are retained, but this legislation goes above and beyond to incorporate additional protections that will prevent coercion and ensure utilizing comp time is voluntary. including a requirement of a written agreement, voluntary written agreement between the employer and employee, a cash out provision entitling the employee to ask for their paid overtime at any time. and a provision requiring employers to be found in violation of coercion to take double damages. i want to read, lots of quotes from constituents, but one in particular that sums this up. i got a note from a young lady who lives a long way from alabama's second congressional district in california. and she said, she writes, wrote to us, as a kid growing up with both parents who worked, i missed a lot of time with them. i'm also an only child.

i didn't really spend time with my actual family. i was either in a daycare or friend's house during the five-day workweek. if my mom took time off, she wouldn't get paid over that time period. thank you, mr. speaker. i didn't really spend time with my actual family, i was either in daycare or friend's house during the five-day workweek. if my mom took time off, she wouldn't get paid over that time period even though she would work overtime. so when i read about this bill, i was touched and compelled to tell you if this bill passes it really would change people's lives and help families around america. thank you for recognizing how valuable time is to people and for giving us an option of how to use our time. i felt that was compelling. mr. speaker, i think that sums up this bill in its entirety. this doesn't solve our nation's debt problems or our deficit, but this provides some relief to working families in america. to those working moms and dads. i urge my colleagues to support

this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama yields back. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's my privilege now to yield to the minority whip, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mrs. roby andry friends, we have a very substantial disagreement about this bill. i call it the pay working families less bill. because what it will result in is a cut in pay for almost everybody. yes, there will be those who will volunteer who can afford to doll comp time. others will not be. so they will not be able to earn overtime because the employer will invariably, not because they are bad people, but will invariably go to the person that will in fact do it for free. i understand it's comp time, but they won't get paid. most workers at this level need

the pay. they need to pay their mortgage. they need to pay their car payment. they need to send their kids to school. it would be cheaper to run a business and pay people at all, but it wouldn't be america. mr. speaker today in the house it's deja vu all over again. it's been here before. in 2003 it was pulled from the floor. why? because at that point in time there were significant number of republicans who thought this was a lousy idea and thought it would undermine the fair labor standards act and the pay of working people. unfortunately there aren't that number of republicans left in this house. deja vu all over again. not only because this bill would send american workers back to the days before the 40-hour workweek, we have also seen this same bill introduced and then as i have said, withdrawn. that's because it would eliminate the 40-hour workweek as we know it. i know my friends disagree with

that premise, but i have been an employer. i have seen employees. they are not bad people, but they are trying to maximize profits. and they wouldn't be paying minimum wage if they didn't have to. and very frankly, the minimum wage is way below what it ought to be. this bill says that we would provide the workers with comp time. permission as to when a worker could take accrued comp time would be entirely in his or her and boss' -- may i have an additional minute? i thank you. so that that letter while a very nice letter, doesn't take that into consideration. the result would be longer hours for workers with no overtime pay and only the hope that their bosses will let them take their earned time off when asked. how we have skewed the rules and play against the middle working class of america.

you ought to read the book, "who stole the american dream" workers wishing to collect their overtime pay would be forced to wait until the end of the year. essentially granting employers an interest-free loan. mr. speaker, this isn't fair. it isn't right. and it isn't going to become law. and everybody on this floor knows that. everybody. all 434 of us that are here today. know that this bill is not going to become law but we are wasting our time on it. instead of wasting time on a partisan measure that would never make it through the senate, we ought to work on creating jobs and restoring fiscal discipline. not a partisan role, but a bipartisan compromise to help put more americans to work. again i say if those republicans who are a member of this house in 2003 were still here, this bill will not be on the floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. always interesting to listen to the characterization of the

bill. it's my pleasure right now to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from washington, the chair of the republican conference, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized for three minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i want to express appreciation to the chairman of the committee, the author of the legislation, mrs. roby, for their tremendous leadership on this important issue. i'm proud to rise in support of the working families flexibility act. because it is time for our labor laws to enter the 21st century just like our work force has. i support this legislation because it is time for those in the private sector to have the same freedom and flexibility that those in the public sector have had for years. as a mom, a working mom, i have two young kids, cole is 6 and grace is 2. i understand firsthand how important it is to have the

flexibility to meet the demands of your job and still the obligation of your family. i am so grateful like millions of working moms in this country, that i do have flexibility. it's not easy. that's for sure. but the current law makes it way too hard for many hardworking moms and dads in this country. the workplace today is not the workplace of the 1930's. when many of these laws and regulations were first written. in fact, the most significant economic and social logical change in our society in the last half century has been the entry of women into the work force. today 75% of women between the age of 25 and 55 are in the work force. and we have seen a significant growth in the number of working moms. in fact, today 60% of moms with children under 6 are in the labor force. the work force has changed.

and it's time for the laws to change with it. most of our labor laws and regulations were drafted in the 1930's. at a time when most households had a single income. for too long several laws and regulations have lagged behind. it's time we bring them into the 21st century. this legislation does just that. it demands the fair labor standards act to allow the private sector to provide time off instead of overtime compensation if that's what the employee preferred. labor laws written years ago require that full-time hourly workers be paid time and a half if they work longer than 40 hours a week. for the most part, hourly employees who want to take an occasional time away from their jobs either must take annual leave or leave without pay. these rules are particularly outdated given that we live in a world where people no longer need to be chained to their desk for precisely eight hours a day.

especially in light of cell phones and internet connections, mobile offices and part-time work. current law doesn't provide any workplace flexibility for those in the private sector. this legislation changes that. it gives private sector employees the same choice as those in the public sector. while getting the federal government out of the way and putting decisions in the hands of people rather than washington bureaucrats. that's why we must pass this law. it promotes freedom and choice and it makes it easier, makes life easier for americans all across this country. i reserve -- yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as somebody who is a private sector small employer for over 25 years, i just have to say that today under existing law employers already have the flexibility to give workers paid time off. the only new flexibility this bill gives is flexibility for employers to not pay people

overtime. the fact is, employers have that choice to give their workers paid time off. with that, i now would like to recognize the esteemed chairman of our committee, who has led the fight for working families for over 30 years in this congress, congressman miller from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for how much time? the gentleman from connecticut, how much time? mr. miller: mr. speaker, members of the house -- mr. courtney: three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, this legislation is a shell game. it's a trick. it's a trojan horse. an employer wants to give you time off, as the gentleman from connecticut said, ploiter can give you time off, comp time to go to your parent-teacher conferences, take care of an ill member of your family, yourself. they don't do that. they are going to dangle overtime here.

if you're willing to work overtime, sometime in the future they might give you that comp time. but it's not your comp time. it's the comp time that the employer will choose when and where you can take it. so if you work overtime this week, and your child's very sick next week, and you ask for the time, he says no. we're busy. i can't give you the time off. you lose. your employer can bank up to 160 hours of your comp time before there's any obligation. that's almost four weeks of overtime. for many that's important. your employer can go to you and say, you can have the overtime, which may be important to your family budget. it was when i was young and married and had children. i worked every overtime i could get when i was in the merchant marine working on the oil tankers. i worked every hour i could get

in the canneries and refineries because i needed that for my family. i didn't need comp time. i needed overtime. now the employer said, i can give you overtime but pay you back in comp time. if you say no, you have no protections. your employer might say, ok, i'll find somebody else. or your employer may offer to it again and say, i can't do it. i need the overtime. then you can be fired. they want to keep saying you're protected, you have the same rights in the public system. you don't. they can say it all day long but it's not in this legislation. if your employer goes broke before the time they have to give you your comp time, you're out. and if you don't like the way your employer has treated you and fires you because you couldn't possibly do the comp time or you couldn't do the overtime, you can go sue in

court, how many middle-class families can sue their family in court, have that kind of money? this is what it has always been since 1997 when this bill was introduced. 1997. yes, the workplace has changed. states and cities and employers are giving people paid time off so they can take care of their families when they need to take care of their families. that's not with this bill. it's an assault on the 40-hour workweek. it's an assault on overtime. they can get the work but not get the overtime. employee, seasonal take that time off. you don't get to say, i don't need that time off. i want to save that time for a parent-teacher conference. sorry. we're going to be busy. you get what's going on? this isn't women-friendly, mom-friendly, family-friendly. this is people that want to

break down the 40-hour week. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i am now pleased to yield two minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. messer: thank you, mr. chairmen. i rise in this chamber as a son of a working single parent mother who still works at the delta faucet factory in greensburg. i rise today in this chamber as son of a family that would have benefited from the flexibility and the time that is presented in the opportunity of the working families flexibility. i want to commend my committee chairman, representative kline from minnesota. committee mmend my colleague from alabama, mrs. roby, for putting together this family-friendly legislation. this bill is about freedom, the freedom to choose whether working overtime means more

money in your pocket or more time to spend with your family. this bill is about equality, the equality of giving private sector employees the same opportunities of their public sector counterparts have had tore years. despite the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, this act provides private sector employees the same kinds of opportunities that public sector employees have had for years. and used successfully. this bill is also about time. the extra time workers will have spend doing what they want to do or need to do if they decide that's more important to them than having a few extra dollars. mr. chairman, this bill will make life a little easier for the working men and women of this great country by giving them the freedom to choose how they spend their time. that's something we all should

support. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i now recognize the representative from oregon, the colleague on the house education and work force committee, ms. bon meche from egon, -- ms. bomamici from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. bonamici: i would rise in opposition to this bill. let's look at the fact. approximately 2/3 of americans are living paycheck to paycheck. since 200hourly wages have flatlined but productivity has risen 28%. employee compensation as a share of national income is at its lowest in 50 years, but corporate profits are stronger than ever. american families are putting in longer hours for less pay.

colleagues, this bill will make it worse. if this bill becomes law, a single mom working paycheck to paycheck could work 40 hours and receive no overtime. she still has to pay the babysitter. she would have to accept the time off when her employer offers. that might not match her schedule. or else wait up to a year to receive the pay that's rightfully hers. and if the business closes, she's out of luck and out of pay. instead of getting a paycheck that includes overtime, she'll be forced to decide between an interest-free loan to her employer or time off when it's convenient for ms. herseth sandlin: boss, not her. under this bill, billions of working families who are already living on the edge would work longer hours and take home less pay. they would have less flexibility, not more.

colleagues, if we really want to talk about flexibility, let's talk about paid sick leave. i ask my colleagues to take a stand for working people and vote no on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the gentlelady from indiana, a member of the committee, two minutes to mrs. brooks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mrs. brooks: thank you, mr. chairman. on behalf of moms and dads that will be affected by the working families flexibility act of 2013. currently private sector employees don't have the same choice that their public sector employees have. there are so many obstacles that prevent workers from being able to take comp time in lieu of the cash wages. but this commonsense piece of legislation removes those barriers and gives the private sector working moms and dads more flexibility. we're getting ready to celebrate mother's day this

weekend. i want to make a special note of the difficulty working moms have finding a job that respects their family choices and their pressures. i recently finished a book -- talking about books earlier -- called "leaning in" by the facebook c.o.o. she said many things remain inflexible, often penalizing women with children. 50% of employed mother are unable to take time off to care for a sick child. she also discussed a human rights watch study that found parents delay having their babies immunized or even dealing with their own health issues because they can't get time off. the study found parents believe interest is virtually no protection for workers seeking flexible schedules, and the bill on the floor now will give those working moms and dads the flexibility they want, need and deserve. this empowers working parents to make those right decisions for their families. if a dad can take work off for

a doctor's visit, mom can choose to take the cash if that's what she decides. if he can't then she can choose to take the comp time. it gives them that flexibility. as a woman and a mom who has worked in the public sector and the private sector, i know firsthand how this does help working parents, and it helps those government workers obtain that flexibility they deserve. it's time we bring that flexibility to the private sector. it's the 21st century. we have to reform our workplace. this bill helps us accomplish that. i urge adoption and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield to ms. edwards for the first of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s retched mother's day gift. more work and less pay for working moms. well, happy mother's day.

mr. courtney: mr. speaker, i now yield -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. without objection, on the gentlelady's request -- they may include a simple declaration but should not embellish the request with extended oratory. the gentleman from connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s dube russ mother's day gift. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair would advise members to confine their unanimous consent request to a simple declare tif statement of the member's attitude toward the record. further embellishment will result in deducted time. mr. courtney: i yield to ms. velazquez for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. velazquez: mau, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s

reprehensible mother's day work. more work and less pay for working moms. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from -- the gentleman from connecticut's time will be charged. the gentleman is recognized. mr. courtney: i yield to the gentlelady from california, mrs. napolitano. mrs. napolitano: i rise in objection to this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from connecticut's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: i yield to ms. titus for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from nevada is recognized. ms. titus: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s deplorable mother's day gift. more work for less pay. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from connecticut's time is deducted. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: i yield now to ms. tsongas for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized. ms. tsongas: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s deplorable mother's day gift. more work, less pay. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from connecticut's ime is deducted. ms. roybal-allard: i rise in opposition to the g.o.p.'s spotless mother's day gift, more work, less pay for moms. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: i now yield to ms. esty for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. ms. esty: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p. scandalous mother's day gift. more work, less pay for working moms. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from connecticut's time is deducted. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: i yield to ms. waters for purpose of a unanimous consent request.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent to insert my record in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s vial mother's day gift. more work and less pay for working moms. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: mr. speaker, i now yield to ms. christensen for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the virgin islands is recognized. mrs. christensen: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s deplorable mother's day gift. more work and less pay for working moms. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: i yield to ms. schakowsky for the purpose of unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized. ms. schakowsky: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s disrespectful mother's day gift. more work, less pay for working moms. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be deducted. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: i yield to ms. sewell for the purpose of

unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. ms. sewell: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s appalling mother's day gift. more work, less pay for working mothers? happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be deducted. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to ms. hahn for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. hahn: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s dreadful mother's day gift. more work, less pay for working moms. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to ms. castor for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. castor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s awful mother's day gift. more work and less pay for working moms. happy mother's day? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the

gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to ms. jackson lee for purpose of unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s revolting mother's day gift. more work, less pay for working moms. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: i yield to mrs. maloney for the purpose of unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s bill. it should be called the fake flexibility act and would be more aptly named, more work for less pay for working mothers. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. . mr. courtney: i yield to mrs. kirkpatrick for the purpose of a unanimous consent. mrs. kirkpatrick: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record against

the g.o.p.'s miserable mother's day gift, more work and less pay for working moms. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: i yield now to miss lujan grisham for the purpose of a unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new mexico is recognized. miss lujan grisham: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s dubious mother's day gift. more work and less pay for working moms. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. mr. courtney: i yield to ms. johnson for the pumps of a unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. johnson: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s unscrupulous mother's day gift. more work and less pay for working mothers. happy mother's day to all mothers. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged the. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized.

mr. courtney: i yield to mrs. capps for the purpose of a unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mitts kapp: thank you. -- mrs. capps: thank you. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s appalling mother's day gift. happy mother's day, by giving more work and less pay to working moms. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from account account is recognized. mr. courtney: i yield to ms. speier for the purpose of a unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. speier: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record opposing the g.o.p.'s shame on you mother's day gift. more work and less pay for working moms. is this really want we want to give mother's on mother's day? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: i yield to ms. matsui for the purpose of a unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. matsui: thank you very much.

i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p. heartless mother's day gift. more work and less pay for working moms. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from account account is recognized. mr. courtney: i yield to my neighbor and good friend, ms. delauro, for the purpose of a unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized. ms. delauro: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record in opposition of a sham bill that in fact takes money away from men and women and particularly women, and it in no way to ensure the economic security of women in this nation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: i now yield to ms. frankel for the purpose of a unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'s uncaring mother's day gift, more

work, less pay for working moms. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the chair could give me the time remaining i appreciate it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 15 1/4 minutes remaining. reserves. gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. could i inquire as to the time remaining on our side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 16 minutes remaining. mr. kline: thank you very much. i want to thank my colleagues on the other side. it was an excellent show. expanded the lexicon on the thesaurus. yield to a ike to member of the committee, subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. roe, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. roe: i thank the chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 1406 and encourage my

colleagues to support this. in my previous life i served as an employer, as a single parent, and as an employer for over 30 years and single parent and mayor of a city. and we had an issue several years ago that our fire department on compensatory pay versus overtime. we agreed with the firefighters. it worked out fine. the firefighters all understood they couldn't all be gone the same day. they worked with us great. it was not a problem. it works in the public sector. i don't know why it cannot work in the private sector. all this bill does is leaves the decision to receive comp time is completely voluntary. you don't have to do it. you can choose to do it if you want to. number two, workers can withdraw from comp time agreement whenever they choose. and they can do that. it's not a problem. all existing protections in the fair labor standards act are maintained, 40-hour work weeks, 40-hour week and how overtime compensation is accrued. it's up to the employ hee to

decide when to use his or her comp time, as long as there is reasonable notice to the employer. and i certainly had heard mention what happens if an employer goes bankrupt. what happens when a city like stockton, california, goes bankrupt? i'll finish by saying over and over that more work and less pay for working mothers doesn't make it true. i support this bill and urge my colleagues to do so. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield to ms. bass for the purpose of a unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. bass: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the indefensible mother's day gift, more work, less pay for working moms of the happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from account k mr. courtney: i now yield to ms. slaughter for the purpose of unanimous consent. -- unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized.

ms. slaughter: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the reprehensible mother's day gift. more work and less pay for working moms. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from account k mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield to miss shea-porter for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new hampshire is recognized. ms. shea-porter: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p.'sfall mother's day gift. more work and less pay for working moms. happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my honor to yield to my outstanding colleague on the education and work force committee, mr. andrews, from new jersey, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: friday afternoon at the nursing home and debi and donna are approached by the boss. the boss says, i have five hours of overtime this weekend. you can either have cash or comp

time. debbie says i'll take the cash, i need the money. donna says, i'll take the comp time. donna gets the overtime. next friday rolls around. same boss, same request. debbie says i'll take the cash, i'll take the overtime. donna says, no, i'll take the comp time. donna gets the overtime. it doesn't take very long for people to figure out what the right answer is when you're asked for overtime. so you might say, well, donna's going to be ok because she gets this comp time. donna comes back and says, next friday is the pageant at my daughter's school for second grade. i want to take the morning off so i can go to my daughter's pageant. the boss says that's not convenient for me. no. i suppose in some theoretical universe donna could hire a lawyer, sue her boss, and try to get to see her daughter's second grade pageant. not in the world that she lives

in and we live in. the boss decides when she uses the comp time. the end of the year comes and she hasn't used it yet. boss writes a check to donna without interest. donna's made an interest-free loan to her employer. the employer goes bankrupt in that year, donna is out of the money altogether. this is not flexibility. it's about the conversion of someone's wages and assets. this is an assault on the 40-hour workweek. it's not worthy of this institution. it's wrong for our country. we should vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i need to inquire again as to the time remaining. as i listened to my colleagues come down for unanimous consent request, it seems to me i heard the speaker saying that the gentleman's time was going to be charged. how did that add up?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. interesting math. i'm now pleased to yield to a friend and colleague, the gentlelady from north carolina, mrs. ellmers, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mrs. ellmers: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to the chairman and the committee on all of the hard work that you have done. and especially to my good friend and fellow republican women's

policy committee member, representative martha roby, who introduced this very important bill because she realizes that as a mother of two children that the workplace must change to adapt to our increasingly stressful lives. americans are struggling to balance their lives, doing everything they can to maintain their careers while still spending time with their families. we in the congress can help. in h.r. 1406 becomes law, a working mom and dad can choose to use the time and a half overtime he or she earns as actual paid time off instead of cash. they would be able to use this time to see their daughter's piano recital or son's baseball game when they would otherwise have to be at work. of course even when this commonsense piece of legislation there are detractors. many myths have been spread about this bill. you have heard them here today. and the opponents refer to it as the pay cut for working moms,

but this is simply not true. also i have heard that it's the assault on the 40-hour workweek. it is not. however, what is an assault on the 40-hour workweek is obamacare which will force job creators to cut back their employees from full-time to part-time in order to keep their doors opened. the decision to receive comp time is completely voluntary. this is not a partisan issue. in 1985 ted kennedy, harry reid, joe biden all supported giving public sector employees the flexibility to choose comp time. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i cannot think of a better mother's day gift. this is something we can do right now to help families at a time when they need it most. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina yields back. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i now recognize the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: i thank the

gentleman for his leadership in yielding. i rise in opposition to the republican party's working families flexibility act. it should be named the fake flexibility act. it's failure to advertise truthfully. if you were true, you would call it the more work and less pay act. and under this bill workers would lose the basic guarantees of fair pay for overtime work and time off from work under the fair labor standards act. it would deprive hardworking men and women of their earned income and fail to guarantee them the right to use that overtime when they need to use it for personal or family emergency. shamefully the united states ranks among the least generous of industrialized countries when it comes to family friendly policy. we are one of three countries that fail to provide paid leave for the birth of a child.

true workplace advancement benefits both businesses and worker interests. instead of republican bill hurts employees by giving them less pay at a time when american wages are stagnant. i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and bring up the democratic minority's alternative for paid sick leave, paid leave -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm now very pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the chairman and mrs. roby for bringing this forward. it's about time, about time because very few people said boy i wish i spent more time at the office. i got to till being in business all my life, that's a problem in washington none of you have been on the floor of a business because you think it's always

about some kind of a fair treatment. your definition of fair is not fair. when i look at men and women, don't look at them as men and women i look at them as mom's and dads and dad's and uncles. they love to go to soccer games and baseball games and cub scout things. we want to give them the flexibility. same as the public sector. what an odd concept to give people freedom. freedom to do what they want with their time. and work a little bit of overtime so they can pick up extra time. by gosh what a confusing concept that would be. this is not by gender, by the way. if you have things about working mothers, it's about working fathers. do you know how many times people don't have that time to see their son's or daughters in a school play or baseball game? you want to take that away from them with some kind of a phony act today and you line up 15 deep and you talk about insincerity? inflexibility? that's your party. that's your party.

the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: as someone who was a private sector employer for over 25 years, there's nothing under existing law that prevents an employer from giving an employee for paid time off. i did it many, many times. it's my privilege to recognize my colleague from the state of florida, congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. wasserman schultz i rise in opposition to the working families flexibility. this bill does not protect working families. many workers in south florida and across the country depend on the opportunity to collect their hard-earned overtime pay, support their families and make ends meet. this anti-family, anti-worker bill would make it harder for employees to provide for their families and easier for employers to pay less for overtime work with hazy

promises of timeoff later. the bottom line is comp time doesn't pay the bills. this legislation provides no guarantee that employees would get to use their time off when they need it or if this employer goes out of business, workers may not get compensated at all. i heard no one on the other side of the aisle answer what happens when a boss says no to a request for comp time for that school play or taking their child to a doctor. employees who depend on overtime pay to put food on the table, may compete with fellow employees who are willing to trade their overtime way with comp time. this could affect hispanic women who are more likely to be hourly wage workers, more responsible for family caregiving and less likely to have negotiating power in their job. there are far more meaningful solutions and i urge the majority to take them up and take care of working families instead of giving them the short end of the stick as this bill does. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: as father of three children, i'm constantly reminding my wife how important this day is and how important her job as a mother is. but 14 years ago this month that i lost my mother, my inspiration, my teacher. someone that i think about every single mother's day. and i ask myself, what would my mom, sally davis, say when we give the option to provide more flexibility to working mothers? in illinois alone, my own state, there are over one mill single parents that need this flexibility to be able to make

the decisions they need to raise their families. as a father of three school-aged children i've coached baseball games, i've watched my daughter cheer. i've shuttled my kids to doctors' appointments. it's part of raising kids and being a parent. 60% of employees feel they do not have time to spend with their families. why not give these families the same flexibility that those in the public sector, many of my constituents in springfield, illinois, and throughout have the same opportunity to use? why not give them that flexibility? because last year employees at the i.r.s. took more than 240,000 hours of comp time instead of additional government pay. this legislation -- no legislation is perfect, mr. speaker, but this legislation gives families, gives mothers, gives fathers the opportunity to choose and work with their employers to do so.

i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i urge my colleagues to think of their mother and ask them, what would they do? i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i now recognize the representative from connecticut, a champion for working families, my neighbor, congresswoman rosa delauro, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in strong opposition to the bill before us. it aims to end overtime pay, bring to an end the 40-hour workweek. this is another attempt by the house majority to accelerate a race to the bottom, strip workers of basic rights and protection and undermine the foundations of the american middle class. the working families flexibility act does exactly the opposite of what it

describes. there is no flexibility. the legislation guts the 75-year-old statue garbting overtime pay for work over a 40-hour workweek. overtime pay that those single moms need. hardworking american families today rely on it. it allows employers, if they so choose, to provoid comp time for all of this extra work except there are no guarantees that workers can take the time when they need it and there are no avenues for workers to file griefanses if employers do not -- grievances if employers do not comply. this forces employees to work extra and get no pay. we need solutions to the problems families are facing. wages have stagnated for decades. 40% of americans make less today than what the wage was worth in 1968. and in america today, unlike in

every other competitive country in the world, 42 million workers cannot take off time when they are sick, when they need to care for a sick child or ailing relative. we need legislation that provides employees with paid time off if they need it. the healthy families act would allow workers up to seven job protected sick days per year. it builds on, it reflects pro-family legislation that has been passed in seattle, portland, oregon, san francisco, washington, d.c. this had majority has said no to an erring of this legislation. they want to eliminate worker protection, further undermine workers' paychecks and america's families sent us here o represent their interests, address their needs and not erode their economic instability. support paid leave, minimum wage if you want to help american families.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i am pleased to yield to the chairman of the work force protection subcommittee two minutes, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: i thank the chairman and, mr. speaker, i find it unbelievable to sit here and listen to the divisive, erroneous, fear mongering information that's being put forward on the other side of the aisle. it's unbecoming. i mean, today's workplaces are a lot different than they were a generation ago. technology continues to alter the way goods and services reach consumers and cultural changes have transformed the nature of america's work force. this important legislation, this compassionate legislation allows private sector employees to choose paid -- and i say

choose, mr. speaker -- choose paid time off or comp tame as compensation for over-- time as compensation for overtime hours and this has proven extremely successful. for nearly 30 years, government sector workers have been able to earn comp time. in fact, last year employees at the i.r.s. took more than 2 -,000 hours of comp -- 246,000 hours of comp time in lieu of overtime pay. no complaints. yet, those in the private sector are not afforded with this same choice. this is simply not right. certainly every employer faces a unique set of circumstances and challenges and responsibilities. for some, taking time at home for additional income opportunities is a good thing for them. pay is not necessary for them at that point, but having the opportunity to spend time with their children, to go to parent-teacher conferences and do other things with family is

more valuable than a few extra dollars in the bank. choice and flexibility helps employees meet the demands of their jobs and address the needs of their families, mr. speaker. that's why i'm proud to support this bill, this pro-family, this pro-worker bill. this is what is meant for this time, and i encourage my colleagues to get off the divisive rhetoric and get to the unifying effect of saying we will encourage people in their lives, their families and their incomes and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i now recognize my colleague from the state of texas, mr. green, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker and members. i rise in opposition to the working families flexibility act of 2013. it would amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 to authorize private employers to provide comp time or compensatory time to private employees at the rate of 1 1/2 hours per hour of employment

which overtime compensation is required. essentially workers would be promised comp time instead of overtime pay. many families depend on overtime pay to make ends meet. the fair labor standards act guarantees workers would receive overtime pay over 40 hours per week. it promises potential of comp time without real protection for workers. hardworking americans would be unprotucted against long hours and less pay without the guarantee of any compensation. h.r. 1406 falsely promises more time with their loved ones by allowing them to choose paid time off. unfortunately, the workers only get more time with their families after they spend long hours with less pay at the approval of the employer. i stand with america's workers to oppose this legislation, and i encourage my colleagues to do the same. the 40-hour week has stood for 75 years and it should continue and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. now i'd like to yield one minute to the majority leader,

the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. and i want to thank the chairman for his leadership in bringing this bill forward and as well as the bill sponsor, the gentlelady from alabama, a working mom whose inspiration are her kids at home and her husband, that she is responsible for and with in order to make life work for them in alabama. so i want to appreciate her leadership. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the bill, the working families flexibility act. if you're a working parent in this country, you know from experience that there's hardly ever enough time to spend with your family. recently, i spoke with a constituent from rimmed. her name is nicole -- from richmond. her name is nicole lambert. she runs a child education

center. mployees are -- some of them need to take time off to care for their child, some need to meet their teacher. under current law, nicole is not able to present her hardworking staff with this option. she understands that this bill would give her employees more flexibility to balance both work and their lives at home. mr. speaker, for too long working families in the private sector have not been able to choose a more flexible schedule when working overtime, but for the past 30 years, government employees have been afforded this luxury. it's time for all of us to present all parents in america with this option. as a father of three, i can tell you as a working parent i know that it's very necessary

to be there for your children. i bet no matter who you are as a working parent if you ask a mom or a dad what they need more of, it's time. washington should not be standing in the way of any employer voluntarily offering this benefit or any employee choosing more time. that's the bottom line, mr. speaker. washington should not be in the way of more freedom in the workplace. i know this policy will work from speaking with local government employees who already enjoy this advantage. vicki is a working mom and police officer in my district. she works long hours and she raises her children. she tells me her life is made a little easier because she's allowed to work a few extra hours, save it up in case

there's a sick day or an after-school event that she must attend. it's simply unfair for those who work for nicole in the private sector to be prohibited from receiving the same benefits that vicki does, a government employee. . this is a bill that should garner bipartisan support because frankly it puts parents before politics. and will give people more freedom to make their lives work. there's simply no good reason to deny hardworking parents the opportunity to take their children to the doctor or to attend a parent-teacher conference. i want to thank my constituents for their relaying stories to me about their life story, about how this bill helps. and i again am very grateful to the leadership and the row modele -- role model that mrs. roby and the chairman, kline,

have set forth in this effort. this act will help parents all across america and urge my colleagues to support it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i now recognize my colleague from the education and work force committee, representive from new york, mr. bishop, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. bishop: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank mr. courtney for yielding and his leadership on this issue. i rise in opposition to h.r. 1406. i have a great many concerns about this bill but let me focus on just one. there is little question that this bill will result in unjust actions being taken against employees who choose the traditional overtime pay option over the comp time arrangement. under this legislation employers have the right to only schedule employees that have agreed to enter into comp time arrangements without consequence. suddenly workers who rely on overtime income to help feed

their family or put a child through college will see their hours curtailed and instead given to workers who choose comp time arrangement. there is not one word in this legislation that would protect a worker who needs cash for his or her overtime hours them. will be clearly -- lose out to those workers who are willing to take paid time off or time off as opposed to time and a half overtime. there are a great many workers, and i grew up in a family that had one of those workers, that rely on overtime to pay the bills, to put their kids through college and to see to it that they get to live lives of dignity. this legislation will take away that ability from those families. republicans claim that this is somehow part of a new family-friendly approach to governing. well, one of the first votes i cast as a member of the education committee, as a new member of congress in 2003, was against the bill called the

family time flexibility act. the bill in front of us today is literally identical to that 2003 bill, my news the title. i urge a no vote on h.r. 1406. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like now to yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, a leader in so many areas, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from minnesota for his work on this effort and i also want to say from you to mrs. roby alabama for the outstanding job that she has done on the working families flexibility act. and i have loved talking with my constituents about this issue. and it is absolutely amazing when you say, tell me what you think about this, would you like to have the option, the

ability to control what your compensation method is going to be? and so many of my constituents, whether they're rearing families, whether they have teenagers that they're working with, whether they're carrying for elderly relatives, say this is a great idea. and it is so worthy of discussion and it is about time for congress to do something that's just plain old good common sense. and, mr. chairman, the reason for this is, take a look at what is happening now. in 1975 when i was newly married and beginning to start a family, there were only 37% of all the families where both parents were working outside of the home. look at what is happening now that my children are having their careers and my daughter has two children. you've got just under 60% where both parents are working

outside of the home. on top of this, you have those of us who are caring for elderly relatives. and as the majority leader just said, any time you run a survey and ask women what they want, they would love to have more time and they also want more control. over how they're able to manage their lives and the lives of their families. and this is a piece of legislation that does that. and i agree with what some of my colleagues have said. this obama economy has really forced more families than ever to work more than one job. it has been very difficult and having more options makes it easier for those families to management -- to manage. i thank the leadership for the work on the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. the gentleman from connecticut

has seven minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota has 4 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. courtney: thank you. mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield ms. kaptur for the purpose of unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. kaptur: i thank the gentleman for yielding and ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record opposing the g.o.p. shameful mother's day gift, more work and less pay for working moms. happy mother's day? i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from connecticut's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: thank you. mr. speaker, i yield now to ms. pelosi for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. ms. pelosi: mr. speaker, i ask -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record opposing the g.o.p.'s eplorable mother's day gift, no way to say happy mother's day. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. to the ney: i yield

gentlelady for a unanimous consent request. >> i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record. more work and less pay for working moms, not a happy mother's day. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. to mrs. beaty. mrs. beatty: i oppose the g.o.p.'s appalling mother's day gift. more work and less pay for working moms and that's a happy mother's day? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman's time will be charged. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. i now recognize the representive from texas, my colleague, ms. jackson lee, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. i thank the e:

gentleman for his leadership. mr. speaker, you've seen them. many, many women, hourly workers, you've seen them with their sneakers on, their rubber-soled shoes, getting on buses, in order to get to work and to get back in time to be with their children. but those workers need cash, mr. speaker. they need cash to make ends meet and housing, food and other living expenses. it's also our men as well. these workers would see a substantial reduction in their takehome pay if they were compen say thed with time off rather than cash up front. we know that if 1406 was passed they would be paid nothing for their overtime work at the time they work. we also realize that employers can schedule workers to work up to 160 hours of comp time. workers will be cheated out of of the accrued overtime earnings. these same mothers and many, many men who depend on this overtime pay. you've seen them. the same mothers that will receive for their gift on mother's day a little

outstretched hand with maybe a daffodil or rose in it, from a little 5-year-old. mothers who need the cash. let me tell you that the u.s. women's chamber of commerce is against this legislation there they know that will be preferential treatment. there will be pets. and the employees will pick those who have taken the comp time. you've seen these mothers. they get the outstretched hand and the little flour. pay them their money -- flower. pay them their money. thanks bad bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. now i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. hurt: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. i appreciate the committee's leadership on this important measure. i rise today in support of the working families flexibility act. the house of representatives initiative that will give families and individuals across the fifth district the freedom of workplace choice and limit the federal overreach in our daily lives.

at a time when our economy is struggling, we must look for ways to help our hardworking families and individuals. under current law, public employees can choose between using overtime hours or -- for pay or for paid time off. unfortunately the same option is not afforded to those who work for private companies. with small businesses and family farms being the engine of our rural economy, this option is therefore not available for many of my constituents. and this bill before us today changes all of that. by ensuring private workers that they can accrue paid time off instead of overtime compensation, we will provide fifth district virginians greater flexibility in balancing work schedules and demands of family life. and we will take these important decisions out of the hands of federal bureaucrats and place them into the hands of hardworking americans. it is high time that this outdated regulation be replaced with the principles of individual freedom and individual choice. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and i thank representative roby for sponsoring this important

initiative. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. it's now my privilege to yield or to recognize my colleague from the state of maryland, ms. edwards, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maryland is recognized for one minute. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. this really is an insidious bill. i've been listening to the debate on the floor, mr. speaker, and i have to tell you there are some things i heard that i think need correcting. first of all, median hourly wages in this country are $12.80 an hour. that's about $26,000 a year. and what that means is that for most workers, for some of our workers who are hourly workers, this bill really goes at the heart of the 40-hour workweek and in fact what it does is it puts in jeopardy some of our most vulnerable in the work force. 90% of hourly workers don't work under collective bargaining agreements. and that means that they don't have the protections that public sector workers have who get to enjoy comp time when

it's available to them. they really do need the time and a half. and it's not like the other side is proposing that we have earned sick leave, earned vacation, earn mad ternt leave. instead they want to -- maternity leave. instead they want to take away and get a no-interest loan from workers instead of paying them time and a half for their overtime. there's no flexibility, it's only in the power of the hands of the employer who gets to decide when the comp time can be taken, whether it can be taken and how it should be paid. and with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. if i could just inquire through you, again, we have no further speakers. so i'm prepared to close. mr. kline: we have no further speakers either. mr. courtney: great. could the chair give me one last update in terms of how much time we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut has 4 1/2 minutes and the gentleman from minnesota has 3 1/2 minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker.

we probably have reached the point where enough has been said where the full 4 1/2 minutes maybe isn't necessary but again i would just like to reiterate a few points. again, as somebody who was an employer in the private sector for over 20 years, and again, the notion that somehow existing labor law makes it impossible for employers to respond to their staffs' family emergencies, to vacations is really just a myth. i mean, the fact of the matter is that over the last 75 years, under the fair labor standards act, which protects the 40-hour workweek, employers in the tens of thousands of workplaces all across america have always made accommodations for their staffs with paid time. what's different about this bill is it's basically tying that flexibility to sacrificing your right under the fair labor standards act to time and a half for every hour earned over 40 hours. and given the fact that we have -- we're living at a time right now where the median income of this country was basically as

flat as a pancake for the last 30 years, that is basically tipping the scales once again against working families in an unacceptable fashion. if you read this bill closely, you have to execute a written agreement every time you want to set up a comp time araget. can you imagine small employers out there -- arrangement. can you imagine small employers and workers having to write down a mini labor agreement every time they want one of these arrangements? it doesn't allow for emergencies when you have a system like that and the enforcement meckfism which would be, if -- and mechanism, if anybody's dealt with them before, they know that is mission: impossible. there's no way that that unit, which again today benefits from a bright line system, where you just check the payroll hours, if you hit 40 hours you got to pay the time and a half. nobody has the time to go through and examine that agreement, to see if it was free and voluntary and whether or not the exercise of comp time was done in accordance with it. you're basically creating a

labor relations board in every state in every workplace across america. careful what you wish for as employers if you read this bill closer. but the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day it does not empower employees or workers in terms of giving them the ability to basically support their family and have time to deal with the important family issues, whether it's the birth of a child, making sure you're there at important school dates or making sure that you're there when they're ill or in need of family and parental assistance. and the fact of the matter is paid sick time is the way that you do that. that's the way you empower people. and that is what exists in the public sector. that's the why comp time works in the public sector. is that paid sick time is something that is part of every collective bargaining agreement in all 50 states in the public . ctor is that what small employers, is that what the majority really wants to impose on every

private employer in this country? the fact of the matter is we need to scrap this bill which is before us for the fifth time since 1996 and go back and have a real dialogue and a real bipartisan collaboration in terms of coming up with real solutions for working families. i actually am an optimist and believe we can do that. i respect the chairman and my chairman of the subcommittee on work force protection. but the fact is we can do far better than this recycled, reharbaughed bill which again as been reject -- res -- rehashed bill. let's vote this bill down, go back and as a real body, deliberative body, come up with a better solution for working families and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. . he mr. kline: i agree with the comments made by my colleague, the gentleman from connecticut, talking about the years that congress has tried to extend the use of comp time to the private sector employees so

they could access the same benefits that those in the public sector have enjoyed for almost 30 years. yet powerful special interests have stood in the way through a constant campaign of misinformation. we've heard a lot of the same talking points from the other side today. we have seem -- we have seen some political stunt, we have heard divisive language and we have heard just plain misinformation. things this bill does not say. we've heard, for example, that an employer could coerce an employee poo into taking comp time instead of overtime wages. simply not true. the bill specifically prohibits employers from doing that. an employer shall not directly or indirectly thrent or co-sers or attempt to threaten or coerce any employee in the purpose of interfering with that employer's right to

request or in the request compensatory time off. there are extensive protections in this bill for employers and employees. but we've seen the straw men, we've seen the acquisitions -- accusation, we've heard things that are frankly preposterous. let's go over some basics. the working families flexibility act allowers in voluntary use of comp time. any worker who wants to receive cash wages is free to do so and can do so at any time. even if the worker has made an agreement and not every time, and not some extensive legal document, it can be as simple as checking a block or signing a piece of painer that says, i in d like to take comp time lieu of cash overtime and they can do it once a year. even after they signed such an agreement if the employee says, you know what i do need that cash. i wanted the time, now i need the cash.

another emergency has arisen, the employee can demand the cash and get it. and must get it. the working families flexibility act puts workers in control of their time. they get to take the time off when they want to. they use the same standard that's been working for 30 years in the public sector. they simply can't unduly disrupt the business. that's worked for almost 30 years in the public sector, it will work in the private ector. mr. speaker, despite all the rhetoric, despite the accusations, despite the misinformation, we know that mothers, millions of mothers, for mother's day, would like to have time, time is more important to them than money. this legislation would give them the option, the choice, the voluntary choice to take that time. we heard an example of a young 5-year-old child coming forward

with a flower. a lot of moms would like to take that time to spend with that 5-year-old. they can't do it under the current law. we want to give that mother and that father that time. this is a commonsense propose. a it will help hardworking americans balance the demands of work and family. we need to do that for them. this doesn't balance the budget , but it will help families. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 1406 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate on the bill has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. cloim amendment printed in house report 113-1. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 198, the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson and a member

opposed will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. gibson: i thank the speaker, i have an amendment but i first want to say that i support the underlying by i take a look at the fact that almost 30 years ago, right here in these halls, in bipartisan work, democrats and republicans work together, here, led by the democratically controlled ngress and work with the president. then president reagan to provide comp time for state and local workers. what we're doing today is taking that same concept and extending it out to the private sector. i reflect on my constituents, i think about the busy lives all our workers have and i think about how channeling it is to bring balance to those lives. i think it's an important con sent to bring forward. mothers and fathers that are lacking to bring balance to the

workplace, but also to raise thearg children and how importants that is for our family, for our individuals and for our country. i think it's important to extend this concept to the private sector. i have friends with concerns, we've heard some concerns here today. i have reflected very sensibly on those. and you know, i would tell you, what i see in this bill, and the chairman actually, i think, summed it up very well moments ago, is first and foremost that this is a choice for the worker on whether or not that they want to join this program. i recognize that there are arguments that are concerning on that score. but also, you know, the worker if the worker decides to enter the comp time program, and decides to take comp time, and then something unexpected happens where they choose to change their mind, there are provisions in this bill where the individual can notify their

employer and within 30 day the business needs to pay the employee. so you know, as i reflect on the wording in this bill, i think there is a balance but i also recognize that there are still concerns out there, and i want those voices to be heard. so this is the purpose of my amendment. i think we should hear from our government, hear from the g.a.o. to talk about the implementation on how well it's going. this amendment says that after two years of implementation, of this law, that this e-- that the g.a.o. would report out to us how well that's going and proside us data if there are abuses and what's being done about the abuses. i see this as yet another protection to ensure that as we look to extend this concept from the state and local governments that we have protections in there to ensure that our workers are having justice. so i ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek

recognition? >> i claim time in opposition though i'm not opposed to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. mr. courtney: i want to say that i respect and admire the gentleman. i do not oppose the amendment, it's hard to oppose a g.a.o. study of almost anything because the more we know, the more we learn, it's always a good thing. however what i would say just in observation, in passing, is that if you look at the scope of the study which is to basically look at actual adjudicated complaints before the secretary of labor and looking again at the scope of the u.s. economy and the private sector, i mean, the fact of the matter is, it's not going to be a very accurate picture, really in terms of the operation of this bill. again, an attempt, albeit, but nonetheless not something that i think is going to give us a very accurate picture in terms of all the day-to-day sort of

conflicts that i believe blurring the lines of the fair labor standards act and created -- creating written agreement nervous instance where a person wants to negotiate an overtime comp arrangement, really, i think is even beyond the scope and great powers of the government accountability office who does do great work. because again, this study, will it tell us how many workers were fired or discriminated against for their choices? no because there's no right to reinstatement under this bill. will it tell us how many times the worker was denid precise day they asked for? , because the bill doesn't guarantee the use of comp time. the notion that somehow employees have unilateral choice or power over using that comp time is not the way this bill is written. and again, as far as the public

sector is concerned, again, in all of those instances, you have an elaborate grievance system which exists at state government levels, city government levels which doesn't exist in the private sector. and it certainly doesn't exist in departments of labor's wage and hours division, which mrs. roby and i in all our back and forth flushed out the fact that that's ultimately where the complaints would go and reside. again, you know, a fwmplet a.o. study is fine and i'm certainly going to join the gentleman in supporting his amendment but this is of -- this does not fix a flawed bill. and again, once we get past this amendment, again, i think all of the arguments that you've heard over the last hour or so in opposition to the bill still trump any benefit that mr. gibson's good faith amendment brings to the bill. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. gibson: i want to say that the gentleman from connecticut is somebody who i very much

enjoyed working with. i think he's a very thoughtful member, i consider him a friend. i've listened carefully to his comments and certainly will give them further consideration. i still believe that this amendment will be hetchful. at this point, i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from alabama, mrs. roby. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. roby: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend representative gibson for offering this amendment which i strongly support. let me start by highlighting a provision of the working families flexibility act that is meant to ensure this policy works today and into the future. section 5 of the bill states this act and the amendments made by this act shall expire five years after the date of enactment of this act. the intent here is clear. congress has an opportunity and a responsibility to review the use of comp time by private sector employees and employees if need be to make adjustments in the law before authorizing

its continued use. even though comp time has worked well in the public sector for decades, congress should examine its use in the private sector to make sure that workers are protected. to further support this oversight of the law, the gibson amendment would require g.a.o. to regularly review use of comp time and provide information to congress relating to changes that might be need thsmed commonsense addition to the bill will help inform congress as it continues to oversee the use of comp time by private sector employees. the gibson amendment is about transparency and accountability and will help ensure the use of comp time in the private sector is a net benefit to employers and employees. mr. speaker, the working family flexibilities act will help more americans balance family and work. because the gibson amendment would strengthen this effort, i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. gibson: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields back. pursuant to house resolution 198, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended and on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, r. gibson. esm

the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. gibson. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed.

to the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: thank you. in order to make a good record of mr. gibson's great effort, i would ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. courtney: do i. for the yeas and nays. -- i do. for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further proceed ongs this question are postponed -- proceedings on this question are postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule

1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

>> we looked at expenditures, government services they receive, and then subtracted from that the taxes they pay. we came up with a net figure and estimated that over the lifetime of the illegal immigrant population, it would come to $6.3le with in deficit. >> what government programs did you look at? >> it was exhaustive. it was exhaustive on the expenditures side and the tax side. we did not count things like national defense or -- these are goods that are pure public goods. we did not spend more or less. we did count things like schools and police and other goods that are, quote, congestable. this is the same methodology, we looked at direct benefits. whether that's means tested

welfare programs things like that nature. >> host: social security, medcare. guest: unlawful imgrants don't receive social security or medicare, they're not supposed to, so the study's authors looking through the census data, if somebody received social security or medicare their concluded that person must be a lawful immigrant. host: and public education, cost of about $12,300. guest: another one of those congestable goods. i know that my son's elementary school is getting very crowded. any time you add more population you need to add more teachers, administrators and the like. to give you an example on the tax side, we wanned to give credit for all kinds of taxes. this isn't just federal, it's state. it's property taxes, local sales taxes and it also includes things like lottery tickets for example. we included that as a tax expenditure. you know. when people buy those lottery

tickets that's money the government gets. host: you calculate about $3.1 trillion in taxes paid by illegal immigrants. guest: that's right. exactly right. the expenditure side is $9.4 trillion. host: this is the new york times this morning, ashley peark's piece. the report on imgrailings bill costs. s the quote from the senator who as our viewers know is part of the gang of eight, the only group that looked at the issue and reached the conclusion they reached. everybody else who analyzed immigration reform said if we do it and do it right it will be a net positive for the economy. critic says the analysis doesn't account for the economic benefit that would arise from taking million peesms out of a shadow economy a similar analysis helped scuttle attempts at overhaul of immigration laws. guest: we're the only group i'm

aware of that looked at the fiscal cost. others have looked at economic coves immigration reform in total, including things other than amnesty. we look specifically at amnesty and the -- and the cost of amnesty. and the report looks at it in phases. under current law, this is how much unlawful households cost the taxpayer and then you have in an interim phase which is a time when they will have legal status but not qualify for things like social security and medicare and means tested welfare, and then the full amnesty phase and that's when costs really take awful the reason this is important is because we have a government in the business of redistributing wealth. in 1935, near the end of franklin roosevelt's first term, the government spent about 3% of its outlays on transfer payment, that is, taking from some americans and giving to other americans. now that total is 2/3. so we have a government that's very much in the business of

taking from some people and giving to other people. that's why we thought this type of analysis, again, i think we're the only one that's done it, was important to look at for unlawful immigrants. host: cato put out this statement, the heritage 2000 study is its use of static fiscal scoring rather than dynamic fiscal scoring to evaluate that year's immigration reform bills. scoring a bill means impacting its impact on the bunnell in the future by estimate house it will affect future revenue. prediction y scored not -- assumes it won't change any other aspects of the government. will ically scored bill show the increase in spending but also in tax revenue.

the criticism by senator rubio is that you didn't use dynamic scoring. guest: we only looked at amnesty, the part heritage is most concerned about. we think it's unfair to those who have been wait, we think it costs too much and we think it could make the problem worse. this would now be the second amnesty and we said in 1986 as a country, we're going to do this one time only as a country. now we're talking about doing it again. if we do it again we should expect more unlawful immigrants. our study looks at just the amnesty proposal. within that, there are dynamic elements, for example our authors accounted that we expect unlawful imgraps would see an increase in wages after the amnesty. we included that. and we see in the interim phase i was talking about, their taxes will go up because they'll also most likely move from less -- right now we estimate that unlawful

immigrants work off the books about half the time and once they're in full amnesty, we expect 95% of their work would be on the books. so their tax revenues go up in our study as well. so our study does have dynamic elements to it. what we haven't done to this point is look at immigration reform altogether. and there's points tissue parts of immigration reform undoubtedly, perhaps not this bill but we could conceive of some reforms in our immigration policy that would lead to economic growth. but this study is looking at amnesty which we oppose and don't think it's necessary to get the bulk of immigrants we could get from a merit based system. host: another representative part of the game of -- gang of eight put out this tweet. host: is the heritage foundation saying that immigrants harm the american economy? guest: what we're looking at is their effect on the american

taxpayer. we think that's an important part of this debate. senator flake and al cato and others have looked at, for example, robert rector's work, and rector was one of the primary drivers of welfare reform in the 1990's, one of the foremost experts on social policy and even just today or it may have been last night, another scholar at cato took a look at robert's study and he said, this is a great examination of the size they have -- size of the welfare state. and he's right. that's the primary problem. that's where we would perhaps distinguish ourselves from our libertarian friends. we agree with milton friedman, he wrote, in the "wall street journal," that you cannot have open borders and a welfare state. that's the real problem. we need to get at reforming the welfare state. host: we're talking with heritage foundation's derrick morgan, we'll take your phone calls on this, we have a fourth line for illegal immigrant this is morning.

we'll get your phone calls in a minute. first i want you to respond to douglas holds, a republican, american action forum president. he's done his own economic analysis and he calls it an economic opportunity for the country. take a listen. >> it will have strong influence on entrepreneurship and small business creation. the evidence is new immigrants to the united states work more, their labor force rates are higher and have small businesses at a higher rate. as a result it will increase the productivity growth in the u.s. economy, the fundamental block of -- building block of higher standards of living and generate larger economic growth numbers than we have seen in recent years. i've done estimates that for benchmark reform suggest you uld have as much as nearly a full percent greater and i think that is something everybody would be pleased to see, less budgetary pressure,

faster growth using c.p.o. rule of thumb by about $2.5 trillion over 10 years. that's a benefit we ought to think about when we think about immigration reform and not rely on those efforts which ignore economic growth. host: derrick morgan, your response. >> thank you for playing that. he's looking at, in fact a benchmark immigration reforl. that's what he says in his paper which is about four pames. he doesn't exactly go into his methodology or his assumptions. we'd like to see those to be able to see if the assumptions he's made on the microeconomics of immigration economics, if those can, you know, what exactly he is looking at. robert and jason and their report is nearly 100 pages and they have gone through in excruciating detail how they came up with their numbers wetch feel anything that looks at immigration reform should

meet the same standard. moreover i would say that his study is looking at wider things than just amnesty which is what our report is focused on. it may well be, like i said, there may be parts of our immigration system that we could reform that could lead to economic growth but we don't see why we have to include an amnesty in order to get the bulk of the positive economic benefits we could get. host: let's get our viewers nvolved. caller: i have a statement and a question. i see people come in who can't speak english every single day, present i.d.'s from foreign country, mexican cons lair card, gaut ma lans have their own and el salvador and most of central america. they're collecting government checks. how do i know this? before we stopped cashing treasury checks, these are the same people coming in with the same i.d.'s and they were

people getting the earned income credit. what would -- what happens is where i work, we have to stop what we're doing, get an interpreter and i don't need a study, i appreciate the study that's been done but i don't need a study because i've seen it for 20 years now, what it does to our productivity where i work. it stops things. the line gets longer, the customers get angry, we have to get an interpreter and people are not assimilating, that's the difference. we have to make the distinction between illegal imgreags and immigration. everybody says, we're a nation of immigrants. what they don't realize, it's only 12 million, it's funny we have that number but the ellis island website said 12 million people came in starting in 1892 through the 1950's when it was closed. my question is last year the number was 12 million. now it's down to 11 million. you're saying you get these numbers from the census bureau. we did the amnesty in 1986,

they said it was one million, we found it was three million and i think we're going to get the same thing, we'll get three types what they say. host: ok. derrick morgan. guest: thanks for that question, caller. we get our numbers from the census data. we go through it in detail and we add on to that the department of homeland security's estimate of 1.15 million unlawful immigrants that don't show up in the census data. admit think, this is a conservative estimate. there are a lot of things about our study where we deliberately chose conservative numbers. another example, we did estimate only 11.5 million when it could be far more than that. we also didn't include costs that could come from frausmed there's some studies that looked at the 1986 amnesty time period and found that about 25% of the applications for amnesty were fraudulent at that time. you could have a number much made some that we

good decisions, but this broken system isn't good for the law, it's not good for encouraging people to follow the lausm we have four million people waiting to get into the united states lawfully. one reason we at heritage oppose amnesty is it's not fair for those waiting to get in lawfully. host: here's a tweet. guest: i don't have statistics for that. undoubtedly some immigrants would bring their entrepreneurial skills to the united states. you can't look at just specific example bus at the data itself. right now in the unlawful population we examined over half lacked a high school diploma and 27% have only a high school diploma.

that's much higher rate than native born or lawful immigrants for that matter. among the native born, less than 10% lack a high school diploma. people with that education level in general are going to pay far less in taxes over their life tivepl than they receive in government services and benefits. host: martin in bowie, maryland, abillegal immigrant. caller: your guest said we had an amnesty in 1996, we're about to do it again, that means we're going to see more in the future. number one, the amnesty in 1986, that was not what drove taos this point. first of all. we dly, i believe in 1986 didn't a poor job patroling the

order. i don't know why the american people still thinking that if we have an amnesty now we'll have more in the future. the systems will be shut down, for example, e-verify. host: thank you, martin for that phone call. you bring up the 1986 amnesty, which is an porn and should be an instructive example for washington. that was supposed to be a one-time only amnesty. in return, the congress promised to the american people that we would have workplace enforcement and we would get control of the border. we're still waiting for those two promises to be upheld.

that's why we think it would be unwise to do another amnesty with more promises. instead we think immigration reform should focus on areas where there's a large degree of agreement where also it could help our economy. so for example, if we reformed our immigration system to focus more on merit and high skiled immigration, we think not only would that help the economy but according to our own research here, it would lead to lessening the burden on american taxpayers, because those who are college educated on average pay way more in taxes than they receive in government services and benefits. that's why we think we shouldn't go down this road again. we've seen it before. fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. that's why we think we ought to do immigration reform in a different way this time new york a piece-by-piece way. host: laura on twitter wants to know what your solution is. you talked a little bit but talk about the metric based

system. guest: if we reformed our immigration system to focus on skills that are needed in the country, in fact, there's a heritage report that we released in the 1980's looking at the late 1970's data on immigration and at that time immigrants as a whole had a higher education level than the native born population, that was less than a generation after we had changed our immigration policy in the 1960's to really focus on family reunification that led o so-called chain migration. we make sure there's a solid match for what the economy needs, including high skilled immigration. countries like australia and others are focusing on that. we think not only would that grow the economy, but help immigrants who come to start companies like google, for example, but it bought lighten the tax burden on existing u.s.

taxpayers both native born and lawful immigrants. host: is heritage working with any senator as they prepare to mark up the legislation tomorrow? amendments had to be filed, do any of the amendments that were filed reflect -- zhr you can see all of this at c-span.org. the house is in recess until about 5:00 p.m. eastern time. until then we'll joan the house oversight hearing on the benghazi consulate attack that happened last year. the committee is looking at whether the obama administration mishandled the events surrounding the attacks. the committee is just back from a 10-minute greak -- break. >> for the families i offer my most sincere condolences from my constituents, they think about you all the time. first question, mr. nordstrom. do i understand you have responsibility for security in libya while you were there.

and then you left in july is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. >> before you left, did you make security recommendations to washington, d.c.? >> no, well, we do an -- a report but that's not really a place where we put recommendations. it's more laying out the sitchtwharkse crime, the political situation and a lot of that reporting i had done previously with washington. >> so they had recommendations from you, or not? >> it's my understanding yes, they had wanted a transition plan specifically on how we were going to transition from the s.s.t. and d.s. agents to local bodyguards. that was submitted to them february 15. >> do you know where those --

was that implementation plan accepted? was it implemented? >> i never got any feedback from washington. that was one of the things that surprised me even when i left ost. i was never contacted from the day i left to this date. the only time i had interaction was when i was preparing the hearings but they never contacted me to ask about thoughts on libya, suggestions anything like that. >> mr. hicks, do you know security recommendations were implemented? were there security recommendations that were implemented? john martin came on board and worked on things that eric was working on before to strengthen our security rt in libya.

after the attacks we worked on a list of security improvements that had to be made in tripoli for us to remain there, i cabled that list into the department after congressman chaffetz' visit. i learned later that that cable was not well received. to the a.r.b.'s credit, when they saw that, they sent it to undersecretary kennedy and suggested that every recommendation in that cable be implemented. >> thank you. i want to sitch gears a little bit. are you aware of any efforts by department officials to limit department witnesses' access to information?

i have never seen a classified report so the answer in my espect is yes. >> do you know whether they consciously sought to limit information s of prior to your testimony before this committee. >> i'm not aware of that. > let me ask you this. i want to read an excerpt from an email ambassador stevens sent to you and a colleague. the email concerned a draft cable intended to request an extension of security personnel for the embassy which was ultimately sent on july 9. the ambassador wrote, gentlemen, i have take an close look at the cable and edited it down and rearranged some paragraphs. my intention was to give more focus to what we are doing to end our reliance on t.d.y.

support and let the department figure out how to staff our needs. if it looks ok run it by d.s. and see if they want it front channel. then mr. nordstrom, can you briefly explain what ambassador stevens meant when he asked you to run it by d.s. and see if they wanted it front channel? >> what he's referring to is the process by which we would send an official state department cable. i had done that for prior equests. if i had sent that email or informally, it's valuable but unless it's on that cable it's not official. my experience in the past was that as soon as we put those

recommendations, just as greg alluded to, as soon as we put that on an official cable, we were seen as embarrassing the department of state because we are requiring home to live up to their end of the bargain. >> i thank the gentlelady, we go to the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll add my thanks to the gentleman on the panel. i know you've heard that over and over again from members here but only because folks elieve it. there are men and women who do what you do who say you're in arm's way.

do you recall talking to charlene lamb? >> vividly. >> those decisions were they decisions ms. lamb was making or were they from a higher level? >> it was unclear. one thing that struck me throughout the entire time i was in libya was a strange decision making process. the undersecretary for management was dealing directly with her. as her supervisor two levels ahead, he has the ability to do that. as well as the right. but it was strange that there was that direct relationship and i never really saw interaction from assistant secretary boswell or our

director. it was even more clear in october when we were here, there were two levels not reflected. it was quite a jump between almost and the undersecretary. certainly i felt that anything lamb was decided certainly had been run by undersecretary kennedy. >> given the seriousness of that conversation, thinking about extending s.s.d. and m.s.d. as the security support, did you receive an explanation for why that request was denied? >> i didn't, as i testified before, you know, what i , ceived it was some sort of it would be embarrassing or politically difficult for them to rely on state department or d.o.d., that was never fully verbalized but that was the

feeling i got going away from those conversations. >> and following up on moving these discussions from back channel to front channel, what was the nature of your conversation with the ambassador, that this was such a serious issue that rather than leaving it with a no on back channels he wanted to elevate that? >> that's exactly what it is. i >> that's what it is. i recall back to our first meeting with the chairman, that was the question that i think they posed to me is, if you knew she was going to keep saying no, why did you keep asking? well, because it was the right thing to do. and tfls the resources that were needed and -- and it was the resources that were needed and if people the felt that was the right thing to do, to say no to that, they could have put that in the official record. >> did you receive any feedback from washington, whether a direct response to that cable or a back channel response to the fact that you elevated it to this front channel process? >> by the time that we sent the

one in july, no, i did not receive a response. in fact, that cable, as i understand, was never responded to. which is something that is relatively unheard of in the state department. when you send a request cable for anything, whether it's copiers or man power, they get back to you. prior discussions, back channel ones, yes, i had a number of conversations with my regional director and also another where t was discouraging to put it mildly. that why do you keep raising these issues, why do you keep putting this forward? >> and if you can characterize it then between a nonresponse or a disagreement, when it comes to these issues of security for american personnel on the ground and in libya, were you receiving a nonresponse from washington or was there disagreement in washington with your assessment of levels of need on the ground? >> i largely get a nonresponse.

the response is that i did -- the responses that i did get were, you don't have specific targeting, you don't have specific threats against you. the long and short of it is you're not dealing with suicide bombers, incoming artillery and vehicle bombs like they are in iraq and afghanistan so basically stop complaining. >> the gentleman's time has expired. thank you. we now go to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i know that it's been a long of questions and answers have been shared. let me ask the gentleman this, last week, in an -- an unidentified individual who is described as a military special ops member appeared on national television to give an interview on the military 'response to the attacks -- military's response to the attacks in ben gazzy. he appeared behind a --

benghazi. i appeared behind a black screen. he suggested that military assets in europe could have prevented the second attack in benghazi, specifically he said this, i know for a fact that c-110, the european command, c.i.f. commanders, were doing a training exercise not in the region of north africa but in europe and they had the ability to react and respond. he further stated, we have the ability to load out, get on birds, that is aircraft, and fly there at a minimum stage. c-110 had the ability to be there in my opinion in four to six hours. he then went on to conclude that they would have been there before the second attack. let me ask if any of you gentlemen are familiar with this claim.

>> yeah, i've seen it. >> i saw it on television. >> yes. >> all right. in order to investigate the claim, last week ranking member cummings wrote a letter to secretary hagel asking for the defense department's response. we've now received that written response from the department and i'd like to enter that letter into the record, mr. chairman. >> when we have it we'll take it under advisement. i haven't seen it yet. >> narcotic to the allegations that the c.i.f. -- narcotic to the allegations that the -- in regard to the allegations that the c.i.f. could have arrived, the time needed for alerting the c.i.f. to landing at the benghazi airport is greater than the approximately 7 1/2 hours between the initiation of the first attack and that of the second one. the letter also says this, the

time requirements for notification, load and transit alone, prevented the c.i.f. from being at the annex in time enough to change events. does anyone disagree with that statement? >> i think the only thing i would eat add to that, not being privy to the decisions on the ground on that day, what's valuable is none of us, including the committee, had those details but for that person coming forward and making that allegation. think that's the point that mr. cummings made, is that it's important to get these questions raised in this format. otherwise we're going to continue to see those same kind of allegations because people do not feel that the answers have been provided or that those answers have been provided in a credible way. so i think it is much more important to get it done in

this manner. >> thank you very much. the defense department's letter appears to be consistent with the a.r.b. report which said this, and i quote, the board found no evidence of any undue delays and decision making or denial of support from washington or from the military combatant commanders. quite the contrary. the safe evacuation of all u.s. government personnel from benghazi 12 hours after the initial attack and subsequently the air force base was the result of exceptional u.s. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded americans. so i don't know who that unidentified individual was on fox news but according to the defense department, his claim is incorrect and so, mr.

chairman, i simply wanted to get that into the record and thank you very much. >> will the gentleman yield? will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> thank you. i believe you yielded to me, correct? >> i'm yielding to mrs. maloney. >> thank you. thank you very much. by all accounts, ambassador stevens was a remarkable man and i wonder, was he aware how dangerous it was in benghazi? and were you aware how dangerous it was, yet he still made the decision to go there? is that correct? >> the gentleman's time has expired. she may answer. >> yes, the ambassador was very well aware of the security situation in benghazi. before he went we had the chance to outbrief the departing principal officer. >> thank you. we now go to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie. >> mr. chairman, thank you for holding these hearings. mr. chairman, it's been said

that all that's necessary for evil to triumph is nor good men to do nothing. but i submit to you we have very good men here who are going beyond the call of duty to come here and testify today. they have my commitment to protect them from any retribution that may come from this and i get the sense that there may be other people listening to the testimony today that have answers that we don't have yet and i would encourage them to come forward as well. week of got a lot of good answers today thanks to these witnesses. i'd like to start with mr. thompson. i'm struck by your long and distinguished career of hostage rescue missions and some of these missions are still classified but were successful. can you remind us where you were when these events began to unfold? >> at my desk in the state department. >> so you were at your desk at the state department. team to help he with the rescue effort, did you

not? >> yes, my first call was to the national security council, our c.t. contacts there. >> and they -- in your testimony you stated that you were told this was not the right time, is that correct? >> when i referred that question to the undersecretary for management's office, yes. >> ok. if this wasn't the right time, when would be the right time? because this is the source of frustration that the american public has, that i have. we're the greatest country in the world and we left people ere, mr. hicks and mr. stevens, to essentially fender to themselves. and when we had these resource, when would be the right time if this weren't the right time? >> there's no answer to that, sir. >> staying on that topic of time, would it have been a reasonable thing in uncertain situations such as this crisis, where we don't know if it's going to unfold, to assemble a team and put them on a plane?

was there sufficient communications on a plane that you could have pulled back a mission that was ready to deploy? >> we practiced this at least twice a year, as in a complete deployment to an overseas location to work with our interagency partners and the team obviously again is staffed with interagency c.t. professionals. the answer to your question is yes. that plane, which is funded by d.o.d., has a robust communication suite. the communicator -- the senior communicator on there works for me and he's a very -- and he's very competent at his job. >> are you convinced? i know you haven't been allowed to review or contribute to the a.r.b. report but are you convinced that changes have been made so that this won't happen again for another embassy? >> no. >> ok. that's troubling to me. and i appreciate your candor.

mr. hicks, you mentioned that at 2:00 a.m. you had a phone conversation with secretary clinton. is that correct? >> yes. >> at any time during that conversation did she ask what resources you might be able to use or might need? >> yes, she did. i asked for security reinforcements and transport aircraft to move our medical -- our wounded out of the country to medical facilities. >> was there any indication would you receive air support? >> she indicated that the marine team was being deployed to bolster our security posture in tripoli. and that a c.17 would be coming from -- coming down to take people back. >> but no immediate military response? >> the marines were on their way and they would be arriving on -- later on 129th. >> ok. did you tell the accountability review board about secretary

clinton's interest in establishing a permanent presence in benghazi? because wasn't that the reason that the ambassador was going to benghazi? >> yes, did i tell the accountability review board wanted retary clinton the post made permanent. ambassador pickering was surprised. he looked both ways, to the members of the board saying, this is the seventh -- [inaudible] and another factor in the decision was our understanding that secretary clinton intended to visit tripoli. >> so pickering was surprised that this was -- his mission was establishing a permanent facility there? >> yes. >> that's your impression? >> yes. >> ok. i thank you for your time. i thank the witnesses. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i just want to you say it unambiguously, if that's the

correct way to say it, without a flaw, one more time. the reason the ambassador was in benghazi, at least one of the reasons was -- >> at least one of the reasons he was in benghazi was to further the secretary's wish that that post become a permanent constituent post and also because we understood that the secretary intended to visit tripoli later in the year. we hoped that she would be able to announce the libyan people, our establishment of a permanent constituent post in benghazi at that time. >> thank you. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. we now go to the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. thanks for being here today. and it's been a long day and i think there's been some interesting things said and a lot of questions. one of the things that was said

earlier today is that these hearings have not found a smoking gun. i believe it's even a warm slingshot. i for one and the folks of the ninth district of georgia where i represent are not looking for those things. they're looking for the truth. they're looking for what happened that night. because the one thing we have found, it may not be a smoking gun or a warm slingshot but we have four dead americans. and that's what this is about. that's what, about finding what happened in the past so we can move forward in the future. i thank you for being here and the families who are willing to do this because truth is important. i want to ask a follow-up question. i want to follow up on a question from mr. lankford earlier about a cable asking for more security. he asked you about the intended recipients of that cable. did you expect secretary clinton either have read or to be briefed about that cable? >> absolutely. i certainly expected, given the fact that she had an involvement in the security process, if i can take a step back.

by virtue of having the s.s.t. teams there, because they were a department of defense asset, the process required for that is something called an expect sec. that is literally a request from one cabinet head to another. in this case, state to d.o.d. that request must be signed by the cabinet head. secretary clinton. she would have done that, the initial deployment requests, plus an extension in the fall and a second extension in february. she also came out to post, toured our facilities, toured the facilities and saw the lack of security there, that was something that she was briefed by the country team as she visited the site. we also saw later there was the attacks against the facilities. certainly there's a reasonable expectation that her staff would have briefed her on those

points. >> i think it was you that said, could this be a concern about a d.o.d. presence and embarrassment with state on the embassy? real short answer there. >> that was how i took away from that. >> that's how you took it? >> right. >> i have a question, in discussions about a permanent presence in benghazi, give me a sort of quick flavor of what were those discussions? you said, we do this, how is that going out? >> chris told me that in his exit interview with the secretary, after he was sworn in, the secretary said, we need to make benghazi a permanent post. and chris said, i'll make it happen. >> ok. was washington informed of the ambassador's plan to travel to benghazi? >> yes, washington was fully informed that the ambassador was going to ben gazzy. we advised them august 22 or theres about. >> were there any concerns raised from that? >> no. >> given the timing and everything?

>> none. >> ok. based on your experiences in libya, do you believe that foreign service officers remain in avoidable danger in such igh-threat countries as libya? >> i believe that foreign service officers are serving their country where they need to be serving their country in some places the risk that they are taking is very high. >> but could we, in light of what we're saying now, be avoidable in the sense from our lessons learned, if you would? >> from lessons learned standpoint, the security -- we need to be increasing our security strength and practices and training and so, again, i may not be quite understanding the question. >> if you had that situation, what needs to be done to present something like this from happening again? is that being taken advantage of or is there still a denial process going on here?

>> i think that we have more to do. and -- than what has been put forth by the a.r.b. in its recommendations. >> ok. so, as we move along, and i want to maybe ask you this question that i asked earlier. sferbley from a security standpoint -- especially from a security standpoint. d.o.d. sort of influence that's been mentioned a couple of times, from wanting to be permanent in the area, was that embarrassment for you, did you get that sense that, well, we're trying to do this on our own? >> i never got that sense. >> did you have that sense, though? >> again, that was specifically conveyed by the person to me and the prior d.c.m. >> anything to add there? >> nothing in the context. >> ok. i do appreciate and again like i said, this is in the interest of truth. you've been providing. that i appreciate that. mr. chairman, i yield back.

>> thank you. mr. meadows, as i yield to you, would you mind gisksing me 10 seconds back? >> i'll yield to the chairman first. >> thank you. i'll be very brief. mr. hicks, colonel wood in the previous hearing with mr. in order strom testified about trips back and forth of these people, these military people like the four that were told not to get on the plane. himself included. during your time as deputy chief, did those four men doing training ever go to benghazi? >> no. >> ok, thank you. >> no. >> thank you. >> thank each of you for being here all day today and certainly as mr. nordstrom started out this, you let us know clearly that this is not about politics. it's about people. and i just say thank you for that. because that's what it is. and to the families, i want to let you know that the people back home are standing with

you. we had an unbelievable questions that i'll submit to you, that we won't cover today in terms of asking them, that we'll submit to you for to you answer, but they're standing with you to get to the truth of this and they will not sit down until those questions have been answered and i thank the chairman for this informtific hearing. mr. thompson, you had talked earlier about the deployment of the team and you said that you thought it was important to do that. were there any other agencies that thought that, other than you, that thought that was important? >> yes. federal bureau of investigation and d.o.d. specifically. >> so you're saying that it wasn't just you, but the d.o.d., so outside the state department, the d.o.d. and the f.b.i. both felt like had that was the appropriate response to make sure that we provide that kind of forces? >> people who are part of the team, a normal part of that

team that deploy with us were shocked and mazed that they were not being called on their cell phones, beepers, etc., to go, whether or not that view was shared by very senior people in those institutions, i do not know. >> all right. a the d.o.d. and f.b.i. had contradictory response to what the state department's ultimate decision was to deploy? >> again, the state department doesn't make that decision. the national security council deputies committee authorizes the deployment. so i think what transpired was a strong enough conversation from our secretary -- our department reps that they were convinced that was not the thing to do. >> all right. let me go back to the a.r.b. because everybody talks about how wonderful this process was. at i see is it's narrow in

scope and incomplete in nagse nature. earlier -- in nature. earlier you talked about the a.r.b. fixed blame on mid level or those career employees, not those at a senior level or the political appointments. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and did you not say that that's where the decisions are made at that senior level? >> that's correct. master pickering asserted that it was made at the assistant secretary level and below. that's at variance with what i've personally seen. >> so you personally believe that the decisions are made at a much higher level? and i see mr. hicks, you're nodding your head yes. is that correct? >> yes, i believe so. >> so the a.r.b., and looking to place blame on those career employees, ignored a whole lot of the -- what you would say the decision makers in terms of assigning blame? is that correct? >> absolutely, yes. >> so both of you agree with that? all right. let me go on further. one last question and then i'm

going to yield to the gentleman from utah. as we look at this, is it fair that all the blame got assigned to the diplomatic security component? aren't they just one component underneath the management bureau? is that correct? >> that's absolutely correct. i don't believe it is fair, as i said. i think that certainly those resources -- resource determinations are made by the undersecretary for management. >> and so as we look at that, when we start assigning blame, the a.r.b. was incomplete in their analysis in terms of who was do plame for that with regard to an agency, is that correct? >> that's correct. you fix blame for the three people underneath the undersecretary for management. but nothing to him. so that either means he didn't know what was going on with his subordinates or he did and didn't care. >> there's some critical questions. >> will the gentleman yield to the gentleman from south carolina? >> yeah, i'll be glad to yield

to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy. >> i thank the gentleman from north carolina. i know i don't have much time. but, mr. hicks, i want to set the table for the next round. september 12, 2012, did you receive an email from beth victoria also copied newland, william burns, patrick kennedy and cheryl mills, you're also in the distribution list. do you recall receiving that email? >> sorry, which email? i was receiving a couple hundred a day. >> that's fair and you had other things on your mind on september 12. this one said, when he said his government suspected that former gaddafi regime elements carried out the attacks, i told him that the group that conducted the attacks is affiliated with islamic extremists. do you recall that email? >> i do believe i recall that email. >> ok. we'll now go to the gentleman from michigan who may want to yield more time to the

gentleman from south carolina. [laughter] >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. as a veteran of vietnam and iraq, i understand that the boots on the ground are the closest to the truth in these situations. you know more about what happened in benghazi than any bureaucrat or politician can. the fog of battle is easily blamed when mistakes are made at the highest level. being caught between the political dictates of superiors and the chain of command, in doing what is necessary to protect our citizens abroad, is difficult. i understand the risks you've taken by showing up here today as well. thank you for having the courage to testify before us. we are counting on you to reveal the truth about the failures of this government and to protect the men and women who served in libya and how we can do a better job in the future. mr. thompson, earlier you mentioned that you hang out with some brave and honorable groups. are they navy, army, air force, marines or shallow water sailors? >> all of the above. >> can you tell me, according

to recent -- >> i might add, sir from other agencies of government, too. the federal bureau of investigation, intelligence community, department of energy , diplomatic securities on the team. >> this is part of your special security force? >> no, this is interagency component of the foreign emergency support team. >> they all highly trained? >> very much so. we are not the operators, we're the facilitators and the people that bring the operation and coordinate all aspects of a response. so we're not the door kickers, as some term these days. we're not door kickers. >> ok. but you share a common ethos if i'm not mistaken. >> absolutely. >> never leave anyone behind, always watch your buddies' 6:00 and lead by example. is that a safe thing to say? >> that would be a great summary. >> great. so according to recent media reports, at least 15 special

operators and highly skilled state department security staff were available in tripoli. but were not dispatched to aid americans under attack in benghazi. why were these personnel not deployed to rescue the americans in benghazi? >> i cannot answer that. i was not on the ground. >> mr. hicks? >> i'm not sure that number's accurate. we did deploy people to benghazi. the first team went with seven members at midnight. the second team left at about 6:30 or 7:00 a.m. that morning. we could not deploy all of our security personnel because we still had about 55 diplomatic personnel in tripoli that were under threat for attack. >> thank you very much. i yield the rest of my time to the gentleman, mr. gowdy. >> i thank the gentleman.

mr. hicks, all right, we're going back to that email. you're on the distribution and just so it's clear, mr. chairman, nothing would thrill me more than to release this email. and certainly not classified. we all had access to it. all you had to do was go down stairs in the basement and look through it. so i hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be as full-throated in calling for the state department to releets this -- to release this evidence as they are when they're unhappy with us. so, against that back drop, this email was sent on september 12, and i want to read you a little quote from ambassador rice. well, jake, first of all it's important to know that there's an f.b.i. investigation that has begun. this is on september 16. that has begun. it has not begun in benghazi, has it? >> no, it has not. >> all right. and it will take some time to be completed. i was an average prosecutor but i did it for a long time. so, let me ask you this.

are you aware of any crime scene that has improved with time? [laughter] >> i'm not a criminal investigator but -- >> trust me when i tell you crime scenes do not get better with time. they're unsecured. which means people have access to them. they can walk through them, they can compromise. the evidence. would you agree with me that would you want to talk to witnesses as close to the event as you possibly can? >> seems reasonable. >> light right. and you would want to search incidence as close to the time as possible. >> seems reasonable. >> so ambassador rice is telling the media that the f.b.i. investigation has begun when she's also talking about a video and the reality is, and this is the point i want to drive home, the reality is it was a direct result of what she said that the bureau did not get to benghazi in a timely fashion. is that true or is that not true? >> that is my belief. >> all right. you used the word immeasurable.

that what she said was immeasurable in its damage. i want you to try to measure immeasurable. tell me what you meant by that? >> the f.b.i. team was delayed, the libyan government could not secure the compound. it was visited by numerous people. one of the items that was taken from the compound was chris' diary which, through the extraordinary efforts of david mcfarland, we were able to retrieve and return back to the department. there were other documents that were published that another journalist managed to acquire while visiting the compound. so, it made achieving the objective of getting the f.b.i. to benghazi very, very

difficult. and the ability of them to achieve their mission more difficult. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think this is an important hearing. it does really make all the difference to me, know whether we did all we could to aid our brethren who were in harm's way. i think it's part of our military ethos, i think it's part of our national character. mr. hicks, i just want to go back and get this. even how to you believed help was needed, there was a special operations unit ordered to stand down, correct? >> yes. >> and even though you thought air support was needed, there was no air support sent. >> no air support was sent. >> so no ac-130 gun ships, no fighter planes, right? >> ac-130 gun ships are never mentioned to me. only fighter planes. >> and in fact there was no request for air space other than the u.a.v. request to the libyan government, right?

>> yes, and that preceded the attack. if i'm not mistaken. >> so when the order to stand down was given, who issued that order? were you told that lieutenant colonel gibson told you who was ultimately responsible for issuing that order? >> he did not identify the person. >> so you don't know if it was the combatant commander? >> i do not know. >> or whether it was the secretary of defense or the president, correct? >> i have no idea. >> and if you have been interviewed, you have been enlightened as to who was responsible for shoog the standdown order? >> i think that the right person to pose that question to is lieutenant colonel gibson. >> when you spoke with secretary clinton at 2:00 a.m., did she express support for giving military assistance to those folks in benghazi, i.e., did she say they would request such support from either the secretary of defense or the president of the united states? >> we actually didn't discuss that issue. at the time we were focused on

trying to find and hopefully rescue ambassador stevens. that was the primary purpose of our discussion. secondary purpose was to talk about what we were going to do in tripoli in order to enhance our security there. >> so as part that have discussion though you informed her that you guys in benghazi were in fact under attack, correct? >> the attack in benghazi -- she was aware of the attacks but we were in phase three. the attacks had already -- the first two attacks had been completed. and there was a lull in benghazi at the time. and again the focus was on finding the ambassador stevens and what the second or the tripoli response team was going to do. we had at that time no expectation that there would be subsequent attacks at our annex in benghazi. >> so it was -- you viewed it as secured at that point? >> we knew the situation was in

flux. >> ok. when you spoke to the president following the attack on the phone, did he say anything about deploying assets? why assets were not deployed? >> i believe i spoke to him on september 17 or september 18. >> right. after the attack, i know this was several days later. did he say anything or was it just to commend you about your service? >> it was just a call to thank me for service. >> ok. >> and the whole team. >> i appreciate that. i think that this has been a good hearing. i think that there are still questions remaining. i think we need to know who actually gave the order to stand down. i'd like to know why you've been demoted. why the secretary's chief of staff called you and spoke with you the way she did. and so with that i'll yield -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> i'll yield to the chairman. >> thank you. >> committee chairman. >> always the right answer. thank you. mr. hicks, 2:00 in the morning, secretary state calls you personally.

not a common call. >> no, sir. >> did she ask you about the cause of the attack? did she ask about videos, did she ask about anything at all that would have allowed to you answer the question of how benghazi came to be attacked as far as you know? >> i don't recall that being part of the conversation. >> so she wasn't interested in the cause of the attack and this was the only time you talked directly to the secretary where could you have told her or not told her about the cause of the attack? >> yes. that was the only time, when i could have. but again i had already reported that the attack was -- had commenced and that twitter feeds were asserting that a group was responsible for the attacks. >> you didn't have that discussion with her, only because it was assumed that since you'd already reported, that the cause of the attack was see essentially islamic extremists, some of them linked to al qaeda? >> yes. >> thank you, i thank the

gentleman. the gentleman yields back. we now proud by go to a second round. >> thank you. i asked you about cheryl millers and you indicate in your response that this is a call you always take but frankly don't want to get. cheryl mills is the counselor to the secretary. she is chief of staff to hillary clinton. and is it a common -- is it common knowledge that of anyone in the state department, when the chief of staff to the secretary calls, that -- is the perception that she is speak on behalf of the secretary herself? >> no. it's not necessarily. >> not necessarily. but is the perception that it's pretty darn important based on your response earlier? >> absolutely.

>> so you got this call. i want to go back to the chaffetz -- to congressman chaffetz's visit there. you were instructed that there was going to be an attorney accompanying mr. chaffetz and this attorney was to be next to you at all times. here's what i'm trying to get at. the secretary has said, no body -- nobody is more committed to getting this right. if the intent is to get it right and get to the truth, then why this converted effort to shield the interaction of congressman chaffetz from you? that's what i'm not figuring out. if we want to get to the truth, shouldn't you and mr. chaffetz be able to have a dialogue and conversation without some baby-sitter from the state department, some lawyer there monitoring, taking notes, calling back, doing all the things that this individual did on that congressional visit? >> i should be able to have a conversation with the congressman if he wants. >> didn't you say in my first

round that this was the first and only time this had ever happened, where someone from the state department accompanied a congressional visit and you were instructed specifically by the state department, do not talk to congressman chaffetz or anyone on the committee's delegation who was there without this lawyer being present? >> that's correct. >> and shortly after the one time when you did have a chance to interact with mr. chaffetz and the lawyer was not present, you got a phone call from cheryl mills. >> that's correct. >> and on that phone call what did she say? >> she asked for a report on the visit which i provided. the tone of the report, the tone of her voice was unhappy. as i recall it. but i faithfully reported

exactly how the visit transpired. i described the content of the briefing -- >> i can interrupt you right there? were you in a classified briefing at the time and were pulled out of the briefing to talk to mrs. mills? >> i recall the phone call afterwards. >> ok. >> i was pulled out of the briefing but i don't recall that that was the time when i talked to counselor mills. >> what were you pulled out of the briefing for? >> i actually can't remember, to be honest with you. >> in close proximity to the time you had the briefing, the e time you were apart from the state department, you received a call from mrs. mills. >> yes. >> ok. i guess, mr. chairman, i just want to stress, i mean, this is rahm ivalent of emmanuel. when he's chief of staff. when he calls my colleagues,

you take the call. you understand that's important. and you understand that he is representing the white house. when cheryl mills calls, you understand, everyone in the state department understands this is the person right next to secretary clinton. and the fact that we had, for the first time in mr. hicks' 22-year history of searching this country, someone accompany a congressman on a visit after we lost four american lives, and that individual has to be at every single meeting, there can't be personal interaction between these two discussing what took place, is completely unprecedented. with that i'd be happy to yield. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'd be happy to yield to the chairman. >> mr. hicks, you and i have known each other throughout the middle east for a number of years but in all my years of traveling in the middle east, any time i was heading a congressional delegation i had a one-on-one with the ambassador, often in an automobile going to see head of state or something else.

over the years that you've watched great ambassadors, have you ever failed to see the head of a delegation coming get a one-on-one? isn't that part of the ceremony that have relationship and how you treat the head of a congressional delegation? not just this is an exception but isn't it always a one-on-one meeting at some point during a lood leadership meeting? >> in every could he dell i've been involved in, that's been standard. >> so they were telling you, a nonsenate confirmed, a political appointee of the secretary of state, her right-hand person was telling you to breach protocol? >> well, the two lawyers did. the conversation with counselor mills occurred after. >> so it was in fact people sent by the state department told to you breach protocol and not provide anything, even if requested, by my personal emsear, mr. chaffetz, on that

codel? told you not to talk to him privately, even if he asked. >> that's correct. >> thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. we now go to the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> mr. hicks, i was just istening to your testimony and during your interview with the committee, you were asked point blank an that was closer to the time that this happened, whether anyone at the department instructed you to withhold information from mr. chaffetz, during any time during that trip you were asked, did you receive any direction about information that congressman chaffetz should be given from washington nd you replied, no, i did not. is that still your testimony? this is just one testimony. i'm just looking at the testimony. you don't remember that? >> i recall saying that i was

instructed not to allow -- onal interviews with >> i'm not trying to twist you up. >> i understand. but i recall also stating that i was not to allow personal interviews between congressman chaffetz, your r.s.o. or me. >> so in other words you did say that you were told to make sure that the state department officials were present, is that right? >> that's correct. >> present for meetings with representative chaffetz and as you stated, they told me not to be isolated with congressman chaffetz. is that correct? it didn't say not to say anything but not to be isolated. >> they said not to have a personal interview with him. >> by yourself. i'm just trying to -- i'm not trying to -- >> i understand. >> i'm just trying to be clear, that's all. >> i understand what you're -- >> ok. now, mr. hicks, you said that

four military personnel were told not to board that plane and that this call, you don't know where it came from. that's what you said a few minutes ago. and so you did not know that this came from special operations command in africa? >> i knew it came from special operations command in africa. >> did you know the individual? >> i did not know who. >> i got you. i just wanted to clear up that because it wasn't clear. >> that's ok, thank you. >> on october 1, 2012, the secretary of state convened an accountability review board led y thomas pickering and ambassador michael mullen to vect the attacks in benghazi. after interviewing more than 100 people, viewing hours of videotape and thousands of pages of documents, the a.r.b. issued a very thorough report in december, 2012, setting forth the results of its

review. mr. hicks, did you meet with the a.r.b. as part of that investigation? >> i had an interview with them for about two hours. >> ok. and mr. nordstrom, did you meet with a.r.b.? >> yes, on multiple occasions. >> it's my understanding that a cable went out to every employee at the state department informing them of how to contact the a.r.b. if they wanted to bring information forward. did you receive that notice? >> i did. >> all right. >> and did you contact a.r.b. and request to meet with them? >> i did. >> and so did you end up meeting with the a.r.b. as part of that review? >> i did not. >> did anyone try to stop you from meeting with the the a.r.b.? >> no. >> earlier this week congressman chaffetz claimed that the a.r.b. report was incomplete because they never even interviewed secretary clinton, according to ambassador pickering. the a.r.b. met with secretary clinton near the end of their

investigation and during that time they had the opportunity to discuss the report with her and could have asked her any questions they wanted. ambassador pickering and admiral mullen have put out a joint statement -- >> i was just saying, i think that very clearly says she didn't interview her, they just talked about the report and could have but didn't ask her, is that right? >> that's -- i'm not trying to make any case. i'm just trying to get out the facts but that's even more reason why we need to have pickering in here and i'm glad that you've agreed to do that. i just want to finish this question because i want to stay within the time limits. ambassador pickering and ambassador mullen have put out a joint statement that based on their thorough independent investigation they assigned on where they thought the responsibility lay and that was not on secretary clinton. and this is what they said. and i quote, from the beginning of the a.r.b. process we had unfettered access to everyone

and everything including all the documentation we needed. our marching orders were to get to the bottom of what happened and that's what we did. end of quote. just wanted to -- and again, we will, as you said, we want to get a complete picture and we'll hopefully be getting that complete picture very soon so that we can get to the point that we want to and that is the reform so that these kinds of things are prevented from happening again. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from utah, mr. cheasts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would say to mr. cummings, who i have the utmost respect for, i totally concur with you. we too, just like the a.r., -- a.r.b., should have unfettered access to all the information, documents and witnesses. we as a committee should stand up for ourselves and demand that all the unclassified documents be released so we all can look at them at the same time, at the same thing. >> would the gentleman yield for five seconds?

i agree. [laughter] >> i yield back. >> mr. in order strom. it's pretty clear to me from the october hearing that there were a number of security recommendations that you wanted to see done on the ground. at any time during your service there did you ever get everything that you wanted? were the recommendations that were making, were you able to implement those security recommendations? >> very few of them. >> very few of them. mr. hicks, is it fair to say that the people on the ground trying to make the security decisions, that they were not able to get the resources, they weren't able to fortify this facility, they didn't have the person theal they requested? is that fair to say? >> yes, it's fair to say. >> when i saw secretary clinton 4 1/2 months after the attack in benghazi testify before the

united states congress that she didn't make the security decisions, you made the security decisions, mr. nordstrom, you're the regional security officer on the ground, you were the chief security person, you're the ones that made the security decisions, true or false? >> the response i got from the regional director when i raised the issues that we were short of our standards for physical security is that my, quote, tone was not helpful. >> so true or false, the security decisions on the ground in libya were made by you? >> i would have liked to have thought. but apparently no. >> mr. hicks, when you heard and saw that, did you have a reaction to it? what's your personal opinion? >> when i was there it was very frustrating -- when i was there i was very frustrated by the situation, at times even frightened by the threat scenario that we were looking

at relative to the resources we had to try to mitigate that threat scenario. >> and so the leadership of this committee, both sides of the aisle, i find it stunning that 4 1/2 months after the attack secretary clinton still has the golf ball to say it wasn't us, it was them -- the gall to say, it wasn't us, it was them. i take full responsibility but i'm not going to hold anybody accountable but it was them that made the decisions. that was not the case. i yield to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman. you testified in october there were 200 and some security instances in libya 13 months prior to the attack, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> repeated attempts to breach facility there. you repeatedly asked for additional security personnel and it was denied. correct? >> that's correct. >> not only denied but it was reduced. correct? >> that's correct. >> and then 4 1/2 months after it all happened, the secretary of state says you were responsible for the security situation in libya.

that's what we have. that is exactly what we have. you repeat lid asked, send us some more of the good guys them. said, we can't do it. in fact, we're going to take some of them away. you guys are on your own. they made that decision in washington. in fact, the hearing ended in october. the only hearing we had last fall, before an election, hearing ended with you referring to the folks in washington, your superiors who wouldn't give you what you needed, you referring to them as the taliban. is that correct? >> yes. >> do you remember that statement you made? >> yeah. i've had a lot of questions about that metaphor. >> i understand. but for them to say now you're responsible for the security situation fly notice face of fact. i yield back to the gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, one of the things i see in the accountability review board, page 37, that i just find -- first of all i want to highlight, quote, embassy tripoli staff showed absolute dedication and teamwork in mobilizing to

respond to the crisis. with the d.c.m. and then it goes on there. naming you specifically for your heroism and for your work. that's what i saw. i can see it in your eyes and the others. god bless you for the great work that you did. but the next paragraph, mr. chairman, i have a real problem with. it says in the third sentence, the board found no evidence of any undue delays or decision making or denial of support from washington or from the military combatant commanders. and as we've heard today, that is not true. the next sentence is the most troubling. quite the contrary, the safe evacuation of all u.s. government personnel from benghazi 12 hours after the initial attack, that's not true . there are four people that were not safely evacuated. and at the very beginning of the thing it says, quote, those who cannot remember the past are commended -- are condemned to repeat it. i think that's true.

we always have to remember them and we can't allow this a.r.b. to say that everybody was safely evacuated because they weren't. but there was an awful lot of heroism. >> i thank the gentleman. so true. we now go to the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. >> thank you. i agree with mr. chaffetz completely that there should be equal exchange of information. that we should have access to all information. but the democratic minority was denied access to a witness. the only way we knew anything about what mr. thompson was going to say is what we read in the press. now, there should be equal access to witnesses and there should be equal access to information. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> on your time. >> hold the clock. you made an allegation. i don't understand. we didn't have a tribed interview with two out of the three witnesses, mr. thompson was not made available to either. mr. in order strom was in fact -- mr. nordstrom was a previous

witness. we thought there was sufficient information of what he felt and mr. hicks, i think he went through five hours on a bipartisan basis. we forwarded their statements, not ours, their statements, we participanted not at all in preparation, we forwarded them to the minority as we got them. period. so i'm a little bit concerned only in that there's nothing fair about partisan politics but i believe we've fully complied deliberately with the spirit of the rules all along. so i would hope that the gentlelady, when better informed, would appreciate that. that we tried to be very forthcoming. >> mr. chairman, i'm all for equality and we did get copies of mr. hicks' statements and mr. nordstrom but your staff met with mr. thompson, our staff was not allowed to meet with mr. thompson. >> it's just not true. you didn't meet with him? >> it's true that we have had

some meetings with him but we haven't prohibited -- he's not our witness. he's a whistleblow that are came forward. >> i'm so glad we're stopping the clock. you're stopping the clock. we need to clear this up. >> i don't think there's anything to clear up. these are whistleblowers. >> and we want to protect whistleblowers. that's very, very important to us. the first thing -- we have not got an syllable -- you've had conversations with mr. thompson. we've never had a conversation with mr. thompson. i see you looking over here and you know that's not fair. and so all i'm saying to you is that we have a witness that came in here today that you had an opportunity to interview -- >> i appreciate that. >> and we never had that opportunity. >> stop the clock for one second. one quick question. i'm asking the witnesses. mr. thompson, is it your decision who you talk to and did we ever -- any of my people ever tell you not to talk to

the democratic minority? >> i'm not accusing you of that. >> no. >> ok. mr. hicks, have we ever signature suggetted that you not talk to the minority or any of their people? >> no. >> nordstrom, has anyone on my staff or any of my members asked you not to speak with them? >> no. >> ok. that's resolved. the gentlelady may continue. >> well, we did request to meet with mr. thompson and through his lawyer he said no. but did he speak to the republican staff. i'd like to go back to mr. chaffetz's or other people's questioning about cheryl mills' phone call. and in reading the transcripts of it, mr. hicks, you told our investigates that are she did not seem happy when she heard that no other state department official was in the classified briefing. is that true? >> she was unhappy that the lawyer that came with congressman chaffetz was not included in that meeting. >> was she unhappy that no

other state department official was included? just that state department official? >> that state department official. >> and you also said that she never criticized you and according to your interview transcript, you said she never gave you any direct criticism. do you stand by that statement today? >> the statement was clearly no direct criticism but the tone of the conversation and again this is part of the department of state culture, the fact that she called me and the tone of her voice, and we're trained to gauge tone and nuance in language, indicated to me very strongly that she was unhappy. >> my time is limited. going to the diplomatic post in benghazi, as i understand it, the britch ambassador's convoy was -- the british ambassador's convoy was attacked. a gentleman was killed. and they decided to pull out of benghazi. is that correct? >> i don't believe anyone was killed. i believe we saved the life of

one of those people. >> he was shot. >> i'd like to refer to eric. >> my question is, did the british ambassador close the post in benghazi and leave? >> he did. >> he did. do you think it was wise -- >> they -- >> excuse me. claiming my time. i will yield if somebody want mess to yield but i wanted to ask, when we continued to stay there, do you think that was a wise decision for us to continue to stay in benghazi after the english had closed their post and left? >> absolutely. >> why was it important for to us stay is it -- stay in benghazi? >> as a symbolic gesture to a people that we saved from gaddafi during the revolution. we know gaddafi's forces were on the doorstep of benghazi right before the nato bombing commenced. and as a gesture, again, as i

said before, chris went there as a symbolic gesture to support the dream of the people of benghazi to have a democracy. >> so he shared your position that staying there was incredibly important. >> and he also understood from the secretary herself that benghazi was important to us and that we needed to make it to be a permanent constituent post. >> now, i agree with my good friend on the other side of the aisle that it was a long time before the f.b.i. got on the ground and as i understand it, from a report that they gave us, they got the visas right away, date of the ambassador rice's appearance on the sunday shows, september 16, the libyan government grant the f.b.i. the visas so that the team could travel to libya. their flight clearance was granted the following day on september 17, and the f.b.i. arrived in tripoli on september 18. and according to this report, the team could not travel to

benghazi for some time due to the security situation on the ground. is that true? were all of our people out of benghazi and were we not letting anyone in benghazi? what exactly was happening then? >> the libyan government did not want any of our personnel to go to benghazi because of the security situation there. . >> when the f.b.i. went to bren ghazi is when the libyan government felt it was secure to go there. >> this hearing continues on c-span3. the house is coming back in. members have finished debating the comp. time bill.